The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

European Marketing Campaign

Sir Reg Empey: From Tuesday 30 January to Friday 2 February 2001, Northern Ireland had more doors open to it in mainland Europe than at any time in the last decades of the twentieth century. We were warmly received, we broke new ground and our economic message reached a wide and influential audience.
Two simple themes dominated our four-day tour. The first was that Northern Ireland, through its new institutions, is steering a course to a new era of economic well-being and prosperity. The second was the straightforward and attractive business case for inward investment, strategic and trade opportunities, and what our academic institutions can contribute in the fields of research and cutting-edge technologies. Tourism also featured prominently in our presentations.
We embarked on the European marketing campaign to tell audiences in France and Germany that in this Assembly the potential exists to put conflict behind us and that together we are building a new and inclusive society for all our people. I have great pleasure in reporting to the Assembly that we achieved all three objectives. I will attempt to put some meat on the bones of each of those points.
In the first instance, the campaign was given a political focus through the active participation of our First and Deputy First Ministers. Without them, the venture would not have been as successful. History was made on the first leg of the tour in Paris when, for the first time, the leaders of the new Administration met with a European head of state, President Jacques Chirac.
They briefed PresidentChirac on devolution, told him how we are now managing our affairs and how our economy is performing and set out our many advantages as a business partner and business location. The First Minister described their meeting at the Elysée Palace as "a milestone", an assessment wholeheartedly endorsed by the Deputy First Minister. For his part, PresidentChirac was fulsome in his praise for what we are trying to achieve here. MrTrimble and MrMallon found a willing ally, but without them this high-profile meeting would not have taken place.
Following the meeting with President Chirac, both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister met the European Minister in the French Government, MrMoscovici, to brief him on the position in Northern Ireland.
Before their courtesy call on President Chirac, an audience of over 200 business people heard at first hand what the Northern Ireland of today has to offer Europe. This lunchtime event was organised by the Mouvement des Entreprises de France (MEDEF), the French equivalent of the CBI, and took place in the ornate surroundings of LeGrand Hôtel.
Seven subsidiaries of French companies have a presence in Northern Ireland and, between them, employ more than 3,000 people. France is the leading European investor in the Province, and its approval and endorsement are significant. For example, the French Ambassador to the United Kingdom, MDanielBernard, made our task all the easier when he told the gathering that "Northern Ireland is a good bet. Northern Ireland is good for business". MFrançoisPérigot, who is the Chairman of MEDEF, talked about the "remarkable economic dynamism in Northern Ireland", adding later in his speech that the region is "a safe investment".
Not too long ago, such glowing accolades would have been unthinkable. They are happening now in national capitals because we are coming out from under the cloud of violence and hopelessness — some would say more slowly than we should — into an era in which hope and confidence can flourish.
That event on its own was a resounding success. Executives from French industry and business were impressed with the presentations delivered by MrTrimble and MrMallon, and many stayed behind to ask follow-up questions and establish contact with IDB personnel, who were on hand to maximise the opportunities. Later, SirMichaelJay, the British Ambassador, and MrPatrick O’Connor, the Irish Ambassador, hosted a dinner in the British residence.
From Paris, our European marketing campaign headed to Düsseldorf, the capital of North Rhine-Westphalia. Ongoing political discussions at home meant that this leg of the tour had to be conducted without the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. At this point, my ministerial Colleague, DrSeanFarren, joined the party. Together we paid courtesy calls on civic leaders and had a very worthwhile and productive meeting with the region’s Economy Minister, HerrErnstSchwannhold. Our discussion was wide-ranging, taking in the desirability of establishing closer links between our academic institutions and the scope that exists for strategic alliances in the areas of biotechnology, avionics, informatics and textiles.
It was clear from this wide-ranging discussion that considerable scope exists for meaningful and very practical co-operation. Our hosts heard of the ground-breaking research being conducted here, and it seemed to us to be logical to explore the feasibility of involving institutions from Düsseldorf in the work. Both DrFarren’s office and the IDB are undertaking follow-up work in that regard.
Our visit to Düsseldorf culminated in a very successful dinner, attended by business people and key influencers, at which a multi-media presentation was made on the Northern Ireland business opportunity. Furthermore, we were delighted to announce that the German company, M&M Software GmbH, is setting up a new software development operation in Northern Ireland. This announcement sent a strong message to other German companies that Northern Ireland is a cost-effective location with high-quality software engineers.
The dinner was followed by a musical finale, led by Belfast soprano AngelaFeeney and her Laganside group of young musicians. I have to say that if Members had been present, they would have been very proud of Angela’s performance and that of the young musicians from Northern Ireland who were with her. They were absolutely superb and had the audience captivated. IDB’s Düsseldorf office is actively following up the business contacts generated by the event.
We arrived in Berlin the following day. As in Paris, there was considerable media and press interest. The First Minister and Dr Farren paid a courtesy call on the Federal Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, and briefed him on political and economic developments before returning to the British Embassy for a lunch that was jointly hosted by the British and Irish Ambassadors, Sir Paul Lever and Noel Fahey. The guest of honour was Dr Manfred Stolpe, Ministerpräsident of Brandenburg.
All of this would not have been possible without the organisational skills and contacts that have been carefully nurtured by IDB. The work done by IDB personnel and others paved the way for this historic visit, and I place on record my thanks and the thanks of my ministerial Colleagues, for the superb way IDB managed the tour.
Thanks are also due to the ambassadors and staff at the British embassies in Paris and Berlin, SirMichaelJay and SirPaulLever, and to their Irish counterparts MrPatrickO’Connor and MrNoelFahey. Thanks are due also to Her Majesty’s Consul General in Düsseldorf, Northern Ireland-born diplomat BoydMcCleary. Their enthusiasm to assist was matched by our own eagerness to deliver our confident and up-beat economic messages to very receptive French and German audiences.
The four-day tour was not about going to Europe to ask for help. It was not about meeting senior politicians, important although that is. It was about telling our story, our way, with honesty, conviction and some pride. It is a good story; one that gets better as each week goes by. We have the youngest and most highly talented workforce in the United Kingdom. Our manufacturing output is up 35% in the last decade. Overseas investment last year has more than doubled on that in the previous year. Eight out of every 10 new jobs promoted by IDB are with high-tech, knowledge-based companies. Tourism, which has long been in the doldrums, has bounced back with record levels of visitors. Our education system and comprehensive training programmes are the envy of many other regions.
In France, our sixth-largest export market, and in Germany, in fourth place, our mission was to explain that Northern Ireland is good for business, and has attractions few other regions can boast.
We want trade to grow, we want businesses to flourish, and collectively we will do all that we can to position Northern Ireland at the top of every political and business leader’s agenda. The initiatives are invaluable and do bear fruit. There is no instant panacea, no magic formula, just careful contact-building and meticulous follow-up. That is the job we are now undertaking, but it is made easier by having the support and endorsement of the House and the Executive.
There is now greater awareness in France and Germany of what we are creating here. In those countries there is a willingness to support our efforts to build a vibrant and successful economy. In France and Germany, there are European partners who want to see us achieve the goal of long-term peace and stability.
The IDB will continue to pursue the many business leads resulting from this visit. I have no doubt that increased business will follow, and for those industrialists seeking to expand, they will find the right partner and the right business environment in Northern Ireland. When we open our representative office in Brussels later this year I hope we will have a firm platform upon which to build our message to mainland Europe.
I commend the statement to the House.

Mr Sean Neeson: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive report and congratulate him and his Colleagues for taking this initiative. Are there any special areas of interest shown by people in France and Germany? What plans do he and his Department have as a follow-up? Looking further ahead, and bearing in mind the forthcoming enlargement of the European Union, what plans do he and his Department have to help Northern Ireland take advantage of the situation?

Sir Reg Empey: There were special areas of interest. When in North Rhine-Westphalia I was accompanied by Dr Farren at a meeting with the Economics Minister. To put the North Rhine-Westphalia area into context, the gross domestic product of that state is equivalent to 25% of the gross domestic product of Germany.
We are therefore talking about a very significant area. There was clear evidence there of a willingness to co-operate on pursuing biotechnology issues, and Dr Farren is actively involved in trying to link our universities with the relevant counterparts in Düsseldorf. We have both issued a personal invitation to the Minister of Economics and Technology to visit Northern Ireland. We understand that he is coming to London later in the year, and we are trying to arrange a visit for him to Northern Ireland. We also met the mayor of Düsseldorf earlier in the day, and he is coming to Northern Ireland in June. Düsseldorf is a very vibrant city. The recent takeover by Vodafone Group plc of Mannesmann AG, which is one of the main employers in Düsseldorf, has put British industry very much in the centre of the scene there.
Members may be aware that we have a Düsseldorf office. That office did an enormous amount of work and is actively following up a number of very significant software companies, including some young software companies, in that area.
We also discussed air links, because one of the big problems that we have as a region is the absence of direct links to mainland Europe. We have only one or two at present, and I believe that there is significant potential, if we can follow that up.
The Member made a point about enlargement. As he probably knows, my Department has the NI-CO organisation, which specialises in offering services to other countries — particularly those in eastern Europe. That organisation is actively pursuing contracts and working with the Department for International Development in London so that we can inject expertise from Northern Ireland companies, and indeed public service contracts, into companies which are currently supported by the European Union through schemes — such as Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States (TACIS) — or potential enlargement countries. Activity is ongoing, and the test, of course, will be whether in the long run we are able to land some of these companies. The prospects seem to be encouraging.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I thank the Minister for his very comprehensive report. I am sure that he would wish to commend those companies that already export to the French and German markets. My question focuses on the commercial links between Northern Ireland and those two countries. Exports from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland grew by 81% between 1991 and 1999, by 34% to the rest of the European Union, and by 176% to the rest of the world, outside the EU. Does the Minister agree that such figures indicate that our companies have shown commendable flexibility in facing various values of the pound sterling, and that there is a need for IDB and trade agency policy to focus on EU markets over and above the Republic of Ireland market?

Sir Reg Empey: The export performance of Northern Ireland in recent years has been commendable. We have had a mountain to climb. With the euro sometimes over 30% ahead of us, our exporters have had a huge problem with the sterling value. Although there has been significant improvement in our exports to the Republic, there is still a significant deficit in our trade with the Republic. I am hoping that through InterTradeIreland, and other efforts and initiatives, we will gradually overcome that. It is certainly our intention to grow that trade.
However, a lot of concentration in recent times has been on the north American market, because that is where the growth has been coming from. That is where the investment has, by and large, been coming from — generated and assisted by currency stability between sterling and the dollar. That has been a pattern in recent years, and clearly it has allowed this area to develop. Having said that, it is clear that in the past couple of months there has been a gradual erosion in the differential between sterling and the euro. I hope that that trend continues. I believe that it is now an opportune time to involve ourselves with our European partners to a greater extent than has been the case.
The reason for that is very simple — our economies, I believe, are gradually converging. The expansion of the European Union is in the pipeline, and it is going to become a market of well over 400 million people. It would be foolish for such a small region as ours to ignore that market. The European Union has given us very considerable support, financially and in other ways, over recent years. Very few regions in Europe would receive the great welcome that we have had. Our Ministers can go and see a head of state and other senior Government Ministers in two of the principal European capitals. The opportunity is clear, and the door is open.
Our European partners have a significant understanding of our situation here — they were very well informed, and the press was very interested. When our representation is opened in Brussels, I hope that there will be an economic dimension to it. I intend to see that our European partners are vigorously targeted from a trade and investment point of view.

Mr Speaker: I ask Members to be reasonably concise because quite a number wish to ask questions.

Mrs Annie Courtney: It is good to see that Ministers are going out and seeking inward investment — that is what we really need. What is the state of current German investment here? The Minister announced that M & M Software was going to set up another software company here. How successful is the current drive for German investment? I know that he is expecting the arrival in June of the Mayor of Düsseldorf. However, what additional investment is he expecting as a result of his visit to Düsseldorf?

Sir Reg Empey: A number of German companies are based in Northern Ireland. The Member will know that Arntz has been operating in her constituency for many years and is well established. Another company of which the Member may be aware is Hüco Lightronic in Limavady. I presented an award there when the expansion of the company was announced a few weeks ago, and the company was represented at our function in Düsseldorf. It has achieved very significant training awards throughout the UK, and it is doing very well.
However, the scale of the German economy and the level of investment here are not matched. In other words, we are very significantly under-represented in terms of German investment. It is our fourth-largest export market, but it is well down the list of investors here, and that is why we have a small office in Düsseldorf. Most of the potential contacts that are there at the moment tend to be involved in the software and telecoms sector. Officials tell me that they are optimistic, and we believe that a number of significant companies are on the verge of committing themselves to Northern Ireland.
But, to be frank, one of the evident difficulties is that, although there is a willingness to consider Northern Ireland as a location, particularly because of our supply of software expertise, potential investors are still nervous about our situation. One of the purposes of being out in the marketplace is to make personal contacts and to make people feel more comfortable. But it is a fact of life that our job, both in tourism and in attracting inward investment, will remain at a disadvantage until things settle down here and people feel confident that the past is genuinely behind us. That is our single biggest obstacle. But, nevertheless and notwithstanding, we have been getting a small amount of investment from that area — it is far less than it should be, and that is why we are concentrating there.

Mr Jim Wells: I am delighted that the Minister did not advertise Northern Ireland as a low-wage economy — we have been using that selling point for far too long, and we need to put it behind us.
This Minister is aware that many areas in Northern Ireland suffer from a skills shortage. Is it not a danger that he may stimulate a demand in some of the companies he has targeted which cannot be met, given that we do not have the trained young people available to take up the jobs on offer? Is he content and certain that if results accrue from his trade mission, we will be able to deliver the workforce that is required?

Sir Reg Empey: That is a very sensible question. We have a comparatively low-cost economy, and that is a perfectly legitimate point to market. I agree that we should not be marketing a low-wage economy; in fact that is entirely the wrong way to go. However, I have been in contact with my Colleague DrFarren very closely on this, and our Departments are very acutely aware of the skills position. Yes, it is true that bottlenecks are beginning to emerge in the labour market. However, because of the demographic profile of our population, we have a significant flow into the labour market every year, and we have to ensure sufficient job opportunities for those people.
It is a balancing act, particularly when unemployment is at historically low levels — we are not used to that. Nevertheless, to take our foot off the accelerator at this stage would be a mistake, because as the Member will know there are ebbs and flows and cycles in an economy, and we will have bad days as well as good. DrFarren and his Department are working very closely with mine on this. We are doing our level best to ensure that the demands of industry are met through the training and education and also through our Track Back Programme, Back to the Future, which is endeavouring to bring experienced people back to Northern Ireland. We believe that this combination will ensure that potential investors find the labour they require.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s very positive statement and congratulate him on the success of the mission. The delegation seems to have done remarkable work in its fourdays away.
I refer the Minister to his words, "we are building a new inclusive society for all our people". How does he feel this objective will be achieved when the FirstMinister continues to enforce an unlawful ban on the legitimate attendance of Sinn Feín Ministers at North/South Ministerial meetings and has threatened to extend his unlawful activities?
When his Department embarks on trade missions and the FirstMinister and the Deputy First Minister have to be replaced, why is it the norm that preference for replacement is given to Members from their own parties? How can this contribute to the principle of inclusiveness?

Sir Reg Empey: I suspect that one or two of those points are slightly at variance with the subject matter in front of us today. Our objective in the Programme for Government is to ensure that we provide the best possible economic circumstances in which people can have an expectation of and an opportunity to obtain fulfilling careers and work. As an economic objective, that is entirely consistent with inclusiveness. I do not want to get involved in an argument with the hon Lady over these other matters; however, I will reiterate that the best way to ensure inclusion in any society is to provide general access to good jobs. What can be more inclusive than conditions in which everyone can have a stake and a wage, something to protect and the ability to deliver a standard of living to his family? I am sure the Member will agree with that.
Let me turn to the substance of what the hon Lady was saying. We can have our political arguments, but if we go back to the source of these we face difficulties and meet concerns about whether we have settled our affairs.
It is perfectly clear that these things are not entirely settled, and that is the underlying reason. Dr Farren’s appearance was entirely appropriate because his Department and my Department work closely together on training and employment matters, which are, of course, an integral part of our economic drive. If the hon Member refers to ‘Strategy 2010’, produced some two years ago, she will see that there is an inextricable link between training and employment and economic development. Our two Departments work closely together to ensure that our activities are co-ordinated and entirely consistent with economic development.

Ms Jane Morrice: I would like to join with those Members who have congratulated the Minister on what seems to have been a remarkable visit. It is very valuable to start focusing on continental Europe.
Can the Minister go into more detail on the concrete business links that could be made and the subsequent follow-up, and can he put this in the context of the major problem we face with inward investment, namely our decision to stay outside the euro zone? Was the issue raised in meetings with the French and Germans? The Minister has said that our past is the single biggest obstacle to investment. Does he not agree that our future outside the euro zone is also a major obstacle and is he not be tempted to encourage our entry to the euro zone?

Sir Reg Empey: The logic of the euro zone is to follow consistent economic policies across those member countries that are included. Yesterday’s meeting of Finance Ministers in Brussels saw Mr McCreevy of the Irish Republic put into quarantine because he was pursuing his own economic policies. So, the club is OK as long you are allowed to do whatever you like.
I understand the difficulties the euro has caused in terms of some of Northern Ireland’s exports, but it must be remembered that countries that can buy in the euro and sell in the dollar — and quite a number of Northern Ireland companies do that — have done quite well over the past few years. In fact, we have significantly developed our trade with North America and the rest of the world.
The problem is that the euro is undervalued, not that sterling is overvalued, and I hope the current convergence will continue. However, as we have seen with Mr McCreevy, the fact is that if you hand over control of interest rates to somebody else — which is what joining the euro means — there are consequences such as Germany’s wanting lower interest rates and Ireland’s needing higher ones. That is the current reality. This absence is slowing down growth in Germany and creating inflation in the Republic.
Economies were not properly converged when member states joined. The principle of whether a nation can keep control over its economy must be considered. I think it would be madness for the United Kingdom to join the euro, particularly at the present levels of exchange, and I do not believe that there is consensus in the United Kingdom.
There has been vigorous follow-up because the IDB was involved in selecting and inviting companies, especially so in Germany, and the MEDEF was involved in the selection of people who attended the Paris function.
To have the French Ambassador stand up to market Northern Ireland to his fellow countrymen was remarkable. It was also remarkable, in one day, to see the representatives of a small nation meet the President of the French Republic, the French Minister of European Affairs and top industrialists and to be addressed by the French Ambassador and the head of the equivalent of the CBI and be told that this is a good place in which to invest. Those things were inconceivable a few years ago, and I hope people understand their significance for our future.

Mr Speaker: May I remind the House that questions should relate to the Minister’s statement to his ministerial remit. Decisions on the euro go slightly higher up the tree than those that our devolved Assembly can take.

Mr David McClarty: I congratulate and thank the Minister for his extremely positive statement. Will he confirm that an unprecedented number of contacts were made during the visit and that Northern Ireland plc received an unprecedented level of marketing? Does he also agree that much of the visit’s success was due to the fact that our institutions are up and running and that those from here who attended presented a united front?

Sir Reg Empey: High quality contacts were made and, if I could relate to our German experience, it was a significant advantage that the Consul General in Düsseldorf, who is a very experienced diplomat, comes from Belfast. The Düsseldorf Consul General’s office is responsible for all United Kingdom economic activity in Germany. Therefore, although it is a consulate, it is in charge of all the UK’s inward investment activity. It is a powerful office, employing over 70staff dedicated to economic development and co-operation.
There is no doubt that to mount that type of operation without the institutions in place would have been difficult. Yes, it has been done in the past, but a federal state like Germany, with its own Ministers and Government in each state, can now relate to us as a region. A similar situation exists in France. The message that our colleagues in Europe got from us, as well as information on what has been happening, was infinitely more positive than it would have been a few years ago when we were effectively seen as a war zone. Europe correctly takes some degree of pride in the fact that it has made financial and unique contributions to here. The Member for North Down, MsMorrice, will understand from her previous position that I mean "unique" in terms of peace and reconciliation. Those are things that have never happened before — no previous examples exist. Our European colleagues are paying close attention and are impressed by the progress that has been made. They understand that we have not yet reached a conclusion, but, nevertheless, valuable contacts have been made. But for our current situation, that would not have been possible.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I want to congratulate the Minister, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment for what has clearly been a success story. Having worked with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and observed his activities on the other side of the Atlantic, I expect very high standards from him. However, the greatest potential for immediate benefit from Germany and France lies in tourism. Can the Minister give us any good news on that front? Does the Tourist Board plan to market tourism more in France and Germany? I see the marketing of tourism as a continuation of the efforts that the Minister made during his visit. By selling Northern Ireland, the Tourist Board should add value to that visit.

Sir Reg Empey: That is a very interesting question. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board has appointed an agent in Paris. Last year in tourism there was an increase of 44% in the number of visitors from France. The figures went up to over 18,000. That is not a huge number, but it has an advantage in that it represents high, added-value visitors.
The people being targeted for tourism are not those who go for two weeks in the sun in Ibiza — it is not that type of a market. There is great interest in our culture, heritage, gardens, hunting, shooting and fishing — this type of holiday is popular in France. Certain small companies specialise in such holidays, and our agent has good links with them. I did an interview with a leading French tourist journal. A marketing member from the Tourist Board accompanied me and went on to make further contacts.
There is a similar situation in Germany. Germans hire a significant number of the cruisers on Lough Erne, and they have stayed loyal throughout the difficult years. It is this type of specialist, natural-resource based tourism, with a high value added, that is the type of targeted market we must address. We have had a good success with France in the last year. We need to work hard on the German market, and our representation in Brussels, when we get it up and running, will provide us with a base.
It is about targeting these specialist, high value areas, which are not so subject to price fluctuation. We do have to bear in mind that we have been walking uphill against the currency differential. However, the tourist potential in France is high and the performance last year was excellent, with a 44% increase.

Mr Wilson Clyde: I welcome the Minister’s statement, in which he says tourism is bouncing back with record levels of visitors. If this continues, do we have enough bed places to facilitate the visitors? If not, has he any plans to grant-aid farmers who want to diversify into providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation?

Sir Reg Empey: That is a very useful contribution. If we get the level of tourists we should be getting, the answer is we would not have the capacity to cope with them. I have said before in the House that our tourism is operating at roughly one third of what it should be. If we compare ourselves with our nearest neighbours in Scotland and the Republic, tourism accounts for about 6% of their gross domestic product — here it is less than 2%.
We need to look closely at diversification by farmers. We have a scheme where if two or more units are being converted then the tourist board can contribute and help. Some people may be starting from scratch, and there are business start-up opportunities from LEDU that could be pursued. If the Member has any examples in his own constituency I would be very happy to look at them for him. We do need to refine that particular market more.
However, I have to say this — and it is not a new thing but it is something that we all need to be aware of. Because of our particular circumstances every summer we are creating a "black hole" for tourism in July and August. The best part of our season is turning into a disaster and this has been going on for years. Despite that we have been able to increase our numbers, which is miraculous. Until we get the matter resolved, we will not get tourism to a point where it should be.
It is a chicken-and-egg situation — people will not invest unless the tourists are here and tourists will not come here unless the situation settles. The major bus companies and tour operators are saying "We will come on the shoulder of the season, in April and October, but we are not bringing our people into a firefight in July". Everybody in the House has to realise the implications of what we are doing. We understand the reasons, and I will not get involved in the arguments now, but the matter has to be resolved before we can really get tourism off the ground.
I appreciate the contribution from the Member.

Mr Patrick Roche: My question to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment comes from a desire that the perception of Northern Ireland should be based on political reality and not on political spin. How can he say to the French and the Germans that the potential exists to put conflict behind us, when, within the terms of the Belfast Agreement, there is no requirement for the terrorists to give up their weapons and when, in the process of this current negotiation, the terrorists on both sides have not only refused to give up their weapons but have been replenishing their arsenals?

Mr Speaker: I have to say that that is thoroughly wide of the statement that the Minister has made — thoroughly wide. The Minister may respond, if he wishes, to the first few words of the question, which were relevant. It becomes rather pointless if every statement that every Minister makes on any subject ends up with the same chorus, even if the verses sometimes differ.

Mr Patrick Roche: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I am not taking a point of order at this time.

Sir Reg Empey: Perhaps one of my mistakes was not to bring the hon Member on the tour. I understand the points he makes, and I understand only too well that things are not settled here.
However, if we go about with that type of attitude, this place will be economic scorched earth. Is that what the Member wants?

Retention of Human Organs

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Is mian liom tuairisc a thabhairt don Tionól faoin eolas atá faighte agam maidir leis an mhéid orgáin daoine atá á gcoinneáil in ospidéil i ndiaidh scrúduithe iarbháis. Beidh mé ag fógairt fosta réimse beart a bhéas mé a dhéanamh le tuilleadh imscrúdaithe a dhéanamh ar an chleachtas a bhí ann san am a chuaigh thart, le tacaíocht a thabhairt do na teaghlaigh a mbaineann an t-ábhar seo leo agus lena chinntiú go mbeidh an cleachtas sa todhchaí bunaithe go daingean ar an phrionsabal gur gá toiliú eolasach a bheith ann.
Nuair a tháinig an t-ábhar seo chun solais a chéaduair an mhí seo caite, d’éiligh mé go ndéanfaí imscrúdú láithreach le scála na faidhbe agus líon na n-orgán a coinníodh a aimsiú. Mar chuid de seo, scríobh mo Phríomh-Oifigeach Míochaine chuig gach iontaobhas SSS le heolas a fháil faoi na cleachtais atá acu maidir le scrúduithe iarbháis agus orgáin a choinneáil.
Thig liom a thuairisciú anois go ndearnadh 50,000 scrúdú iarbháis in ospidéil ón bhliain 1970. Rinne paiteolaithe stáit formhór acu siúd faoin Coroners Act.
Tuairiscíodh gur coinníodh 376 orgán páistí san iomlán sular tugadh na treoirlínte reatha isteach, agus go bhfuil siad á gcoinneáil gan toiliú eolasach tuismitheoirí: go bhfuil 361 díobh in Ospidéal Ríoga Victoria agus 15 eile díobh in Ospidéal Alt na nGealbhan. Tá orgán eile páiste amháin á choinneáil, le toiliú iomlán tuismitheoirí, in Ospidéal Cheantar Craigavon.
Bhain an t-imscrúdú fosta le horgáin aosach a coinníodh i ndiaidh scrúduithe iarbháis. Taobh amuigh d’Ospidéal Ríoga Victoria, coinníodh 60 orgán aosach san iomlán, gan toiliú eolasach i mbunús na gcásanna: coinníodh 45 cinn díobh in Ospidéal Alt na nGealbhan; trí cinn in Ospidéal Uladh; agus 12 cheann (haoi gcinn díobh le toiliú iomlán gaolta) in Ospidéal Cheantar Craigavon.
Coinníodh 677 n-inchinn mar aon le cordaí dromlaigh sa Ghrúpa Ríoga Ospidéal. Tá fardal mionchruinn á dhéanamh ar gach sampla d’fhíochán aosaigh san ospidéal le seiceáil an bhfuil orgáin eile ina mheasc. Tá an scrúdú fisciúil sin á dhéanamh faoi dhúdheifre agus táthar ag dréim le freagra cinntitheach i dtaca le líon agus le cineál orgán ar bith a coinníodh faoi dheireadh mhí Feabhra.
Tuigim go ndearnadh gach ceann de na horgáin a aimsíodh a choinneáil i ndiaidh scrúdú iarbháis ospidéil nó scrúdú iarbháis cróinéara.
Is léir fosta, i gcuid mhór cásanna, gur coinníodh orgáin ar feadh tamaill mar chuid d’imscrúdú iarbháis agus gur créamadh ina dhiaidh sin iad. Go dtí le deireannas, ba ghnáthchleachtas é sin ar fud na n-oileán seo. Ach is léir nach bhfuil sé inghlactha go dtarlódh a leithéid gan toiliú eolasach.
Dearbhaíodh san imscrúdú nach ar an scála chéanna a bhí orgáin á gcoinneáil anseo agus i Sasana. Níor thángthas ar fhianaise ar bith gur coinníodh orgáin go córasach coitianta, mar a tharla in Ospidéal Alder Hey.
Ach ba mhaith liom a rá go soiléir nár cheart, ar chor ar bith, go gcoinneodh an Seirbhís Sláinte aon orgán gan toiliú eolasach sainráite ó theaghlach an té a fuair bás. Tá sin fíor-riachtanach.
I wish to report to the Assembly my findings on the scale of human organ retention in hospitals following post mortem examinations. I will also announce a package of measures that I am taking to further investigate past practice, to support the families affected and to ensure that future practice is built on the principle of informed consent — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. If Members wish to have conversations, which is perfectly reasonable, I ask that they do so in the Lobby.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: When this matter first came to light last month, I asked for an investigation to be undertaken immediately to establish the scale of the problem here and the number of organs being retained. As part of this investigation, the chief medical officer wrote to all health and social services trusts seeking information on their practices relating to post mortems and organ retention.
I can now report that nearly 50,000 post mortems have been undertaken in hospitals since 1970, and the vast majority of these were carried out by state pathologists under the Coroners Act 1988. It is reported that 376 children’s organs have been retained prior to the introduction of the current guidelines. They are held without informed parental consent. There are three hundred and sixty one in the Royal Victoria Hospital and 15 in Altnagelvin Hospital. One additional child’s organ has been retained with full parental consent at Craigavon Area Hospital.
The investigation also covered the retention of adult organs following post mortem examinations. Apart from the Royal Victoria Hospital, 60 adult organs have been retained, mostly without informed consent: 45 in Altnagelvin Hospital; three in the Ulster Hospital; and 12 in Craigavon Area Hospital — nine of which are with relatives’ full consent.
In the Royal Group of Hospitals, 677 brains and spinal cords have been retained. A detailed inventory of all adult tissue samples in the hospital is underway to check if they include other organs. This physical inspection is proceeding with all haste, and a definitive answer on the number and type of organs retained is expected by the end of February.
I understand that all the retained organs identified have been held following a hospital post mortem or a coroner’s post mortem. It is also apparent that in many cases, organs have been held for a time as part of a post mortem investigation and subsequently cremated. Until recently, this was a common practice throughout these isles, but it is clearly not acceptable for that to happen without informed consent.
The investigation has confirmed that the number of organs retained here has not been on the same scale as in England. It has found no evidence of any systematic wholesale retention of organs, as was the case in Alder Hey Hospital. However, I am clear that no organs should be retained by the Health Service without the explicit and informed consent of the family of the deceased. This is absolutely essential.
I have listened carefully to the voice of parents and to the many helpful points raised by Members in the course of the recent debate on this subject. My conclusion is that there are still too many questions unanswered. Decisive action is needed to answer the questions put by many of the families affected, and to restore faith in our service and in future post mortem practice.
To achieve this, I am announcing a major initiative to investigate past actions, support those affected, and ensure that such practices can never recur. The initiative will include the following measures. First, there will be an inquiry established under article 54 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 to review past and current practice in post mortem and organ removal, retention and disposal. The inquiry will report on past practice and make recommendations for future arrangements, and it will report to me within twelve months.
Secondly, a relatives’ support group will be set up quickly to work with parents and hospitals in order to ensure that the families affected receive full and timely information and support. The group will bring together parents, health and social services councils, bereavement counsellors and other interests, to ensure that parents and relatives are given appropriate advice, information and effective support.
Thirdly, there will be a review of the Human Tissue Act (Northern Ireland) 1962, with the aim of strengthening its provisions in regard to consent and making it a criminal offence to retain organs without informed consent. The review will take appropriate account of parallel developments in Great Britain. I also wish to ensure that proposed amendments are broadly compatible with the views of the inquiry on what is required.
Fourthly, recognising that the new legislation will take time to be put on the statute book, I will prepare good practice guidelines for the health services. These will provide interim guidance to the service on acceptable practice, pending new legislation.
The inquiry will have the power to summon witnesses and require the presentation of information, should that prove necessary. I will be furnishing the inquiry with the information gathered in the course of my own investigation, which it will supersede. I hope to announce shortly further details of the inquiry and membership of the support group.

Dr Joe Hendron: I welcome the Minister’s statement on behalf of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee.
I would have preferred a full public inquiry into the matter. However, I am aware of the very great sensitivities of the families who have been bereaved over the years and where organs of their loved ones have been retained. The Minister mentioned that the Human Tissue Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 legislation would be looked at. I wonder if the Coroners Act 1959 should be looked at as well, because I understand that people in England are looking closely at the Coroners Act there.
Looking at the statement, I was aware that 376 children’s organs had been retained but was not aware that 677 adult’s brains and spinal cords had been retained at the Royal Group of Hospitals. Obviously, a lot of people will be asking questions about that and about the other organs that were subsequently cremated. However, that will be the purpose of the inquiry.
While I would prefer a full public inquiry into this matter, the Minister seems to be proceeding along these lines. My question concerns her last comment that she hopes to announce shortly further details of the inquiry and membership of the support group. Will she present the terms of reference concerning that inquiry and the support group membership to the Assembly?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: First, it will become very clear that this will be a full statutory inquiry, not only because of the statute under which it is being set up but also from its terms of reference. As such, it will have the power to engage with the public, to call for evidence from whomsoever it feels can best contribute to the inquiry and hold its meetings in public if it feels that that is necessary or desirable.
The inquiry’s terms of reference will require it to take account of the views and reasonable expectations of parents and relatives. It will report to me, and its findings will be made public.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I also welcome the Minister’s announcement about the inquiry and the setting up of a support group. People who have been affected by the organ retention scandal are asking what happened and why they were not told about it sooner. It is hoped that the inquiry and the support group will address and answer those questions.
Like other Members, I have been approached by members of the public who have been affected by organ retention. The Minister’s statement contains an assumption that, in many cases, organs were held and subsequently cremated. Will the inquiry be able to give Members information on cremation records? Was cremation the only means of disposal used? If not, what other means were used?
Will the Minister also tell the House if the support group will have links with every trust group? The families affected by the organ scandal live in every part of Northern Ireland.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Cremation and organ disposal will be part and parcel of the inquiry. The inquiry will be able to find out the relevant information on those issues and present its findings to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
Dr Hendron previously asked a question about the review of the Coroners Act. As Dr Hendron said, that review is taking place in England, and the spin-off from that might well input in to legislation here, but that will not be within my power. However, I will be bringing forward legislation that will cover all aspects of ensuring that practice here is carried out to the highest possible standard in the future.
Mr Gallagher also asked if the support group will have links with trusts in every area. It is essential that the support group liaises with families and their representatives throughout the inquiry and that their needs and concerns are established. It is also essential that the support group works directly with the hospitals to ensure that the arrangements address the needs of families effectively and sensitively. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has already issued guidance to trusts about the required support for families, particularly those who live a long distance from the hospital at which their relatives’ organs are being retained.
The Department needs to ensure that any subsequent support builds on that and that the highest standards and fullest efforts are made to meet the concerns and needs of parents. It is also important that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety receive the best possible advice with regard to setting standards for the future and bringing forward new legislation.

Rev Robert Coulter: I also welcome the Minister’s statement and commend the speed with which her inquiry has been commenced. According to a rough calculation from the information in the report, there are 1,113 organs retained in hospitals. How many organs have been returned to relatives? Will the new guidelines be announced to the Assembly? Can the Minister give any indication when legislation will be laid before the House?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: First, the process of discussions with parents as to what they wish to be done with the organs, how they wish this to be treated and where they are to be returned is ongoing. I cannot give you an exact figure for the number of organs returned to relatives. However, it is small compared to the number of organs that have been retained. The support committee is so important, because the relative social services, councils and others can give advice and work alongside those who can find their way through the system and ensure that parents have access to the absolute, total information and support that they require.
I will make the guidelines and the terms of reference known to the Assembly. I will also make the membership of the group and of the inquiry team known to the Assembly. We want the fullest possible information to be available to ensure that the way forward is built upon the experiences to date and the knowledge of what is needed for the future.

Mrs Iris Robinson: Does the Minister accept that her initial inquiry was insufficient and that she ought to have had a full and proper inquiry from the start? Does she accept that the drip-feed process which we have all witnessed has further eroded public confidence and that it will be fully and properly restored only by a public inquiry? Finally, does the Minister accept that this whole matter has seriously damaged public confidence in the entire donor system and that that will be restored only after a full public inquiry with lay people’s involvement?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: As soon as this issue arose I set out very clearly the steps that I would take. Those steps involved an immediate telephone enquiry to hospitals, followed by an investigation carried out by officials, who then sent for written information. At the time I made it clear that that information was necessary for me to establish the facts of what it was we were dealing with and what steps were necessary. I made it clear from the outset that nothing would be ruled out. People will see that the clear, precise and professional way of dealing with this led from the outset to where we are today — having a full picture of what we need.
Today I announced a package of measures to deal not only with the long-term changes — it will take time to put legislation in place — but also with an inquiry to establish the facts, which could take up to 12months. In the interim, guidance has been issued so that practices here are informed of the best way forward, and a support group has been set up to ensure that relatives do not have to wait until the outcome of an inquiry, or for legislation, to see change. They can have their concerns addressed and have the availability of information and services immediately.
I hope that Members will not say that I have handled this in anything other than a very careful, precise and professional manner, dealing with the importance of the issue, recognising the trauma that parents have been through and recognising the need to ensure the highest possible standards.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat A Cheann Comhairle. I too welcome the Minister’s timely statement. She could not have brought it any more speedily to the Assembly. It would be compounding an injustice and compounding pain if one were to make this into some sort of political football.
At the time, I congratulated JimShannon on bringing this motion to the Chamber. I also said that it would be tragic if this dreadful situation were allowed to influence the very worthy organ donation scheme.
This has already happened in England. I hope the Minster’s statement will at least assuage and assure people who are waiting for organ donations that this fear can be put to one side. I believe that the terms of the inquiry will satisfy the publicly-stated requirements of the parents, and, to that extent, I hope that it will lessen the pain and not increase it. That ought to be its overriding thrust.
What exactly is being done to ensure that advice, information and appropriate support is available for parents? How long will legislation take, and, importantly, what will happen in the interim? Can the Minister give an assurance that parents will have a key role in dealing with this issue during the course of the inquiry, a Cheann Comhairle?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I reiterate that the inquiry will be set up under statute with the necessary powers to establish the full facts. It will be full and exhaustive. Its terms of reference will require that the views and reasonable expectations of parents and relatives be taken into account. It will have the powers of any statutory inquiry — to engage with the public, to hold meetings in public, if it feels that that is necessary or desirable, and call whomsoever it feels can best contribute to give evidence.
I have answered some of Mr Kelly’s questions in my answers to previous questions. For example, trusts have been asked to ensure that in cases where hospitals are retaining organs, or if they have information, that information is supplied to the relatives and that they look at their practices to ensure that this is being done in a manner which the relatives require. Trusts in every trust area have been told that they need to ensure that support, advice, help and counselling, if necessary, are available to parents. They specifically need to look at this where relatives are living at a distance from the hospital where organs are being retained. The establishment of a support group, which I announced today, will make very specific provision for liaising with parents, families and hospitals to ensure that the support available is there for the parents, that practice is as parents would wish and that advice is given to my Department in the drawing up of interim guidance and legislation.
I am committed to taking this matter forward as quickly as is practicable, given the legislative timetable of the Assembly. However, recognising that the legislation will take some time to bring on to the statute book, I hope, if we can find a window, that it will not take too long. In the interim I am taking steps to provide guidance to trusts to ensure that they adopt the spirit of proposed legislation prior to its coming into force.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: We have all been dismayed and disgusted at what has happened, and we offer our sympathy to all that have suffered and are suffering. We welcome all the measures outlined by the Minister this morning. Can the Minister assure the House that her Department will encourage the continuation of the voluntary donation of organs? In order to save further lives, will her Department do what is necessary to restore confidence in this very important field? Will she assure the House that under no circumstances will she ever permit the sale, or disposal by any other means, of organs to cosmetic companies or research agencies? Financial reward should have no part to play in organ donations.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I have said before that organ retention and disposal — and that covers disposal of any sort — will be part and parcel of the inquiry. This will be made clear in the way we move forward in the future. I certainly hope that the measures I announced today will restore public confidence in this area by setting standards; by making sure that the public is fully informed about what is happening; and finally, but most importantly, by ensuring that future practice is based firmly on the principal of explicit informed consent of the families.
The Department will be encouraging the voluntary donation of organs as part of its ongoing work. It is vital that people are still willing to donate their organs to save the lives of others. I understand that that is the case and that people are making a distinction. In fact, it has been said repeatedly by some of the families involved that if they had known that the organs of their loved ones could have helped others, they might well have been willing to donate them if they had been asked. The problem was that they were not.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I have not had the opportunity to check article 54 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, but can the Minister confirm the composition of the inquiry team? Will she consider parents or relatives’ representatives, if not in an advisory capacity then as members of the inquiry team? Would that be possible under the statute?
If not, would it be possible to have a relatives’ advisory group? That would be separate from a relatives’ support group, because counselling and support are very different from advice that relatives who have been through this process could offer. It would also be different from acting as a witness to the inquiry. Parents have told me that they have asked for direct input into any ongoing inquiry that may be established. They feel that they should have a role.
When can we expect to have the interim guidance? I support Mr McCarthy’s point, not just as regards advice to parents, but for the sake of those engaged in transplants. This is an enormous concern at the moment, and representations have been made to me. Is there any protocol as regards the questions that are asked when requesting voluntary donations?
I am also concerned that the inquiry will not report for 12 months. Has the Minister given any consideration to the inquiry’s reporting sooner than that? Why was one year specified? It seems rather a lengthy inquiry, given that legislation will follow thereafter.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: In looking at how the inquiry would be set up as regards its terms of reference and the length of time it would take, I investigated what has happened in England, Scotland and the South of Ireland. I had thought of setting up an inquiry that would report to me in six months, but I understand that where that had happened elsewhere, that time frame was not sufficient. I was worried about setting up an inquiry and raising expectations and then being seen to dash those expectations by lengthening it. That is why I decided on 12 months.
The inquiry will be set up under statute. It will be an independent inquiry, but its terms of reference will require it to take account of the views and of the reasonable expectations of parents and relatives. Therefore it will be up to the team to ensure that that is done. We will make sure that there are proper ways in which the inquiry will carry out that part of its terms of reference.
I referred to a parents’ support group. Perhaps when we come to consider the terms of reference of that group, I should call the group something that will clearly show that it has more than a supportive role. It will liaise with families and hospitals to ensure that arrangements address the needs of families effectively and sensitively, but it will also be directly involved in influencing the ways in which parents and families are advised and supported at this difficult time. It will also act as a resource in advising myself, and it will assist the Department in developing the necessary guidance and the new legislation. It will have a direct role and an integral role.

Mr Jim Shannon: The thrust of the Minister’s statement has been about the principle of informed consent. That is where we should be coming from. Unfortunately, there are some issues that are still outstanding and which need to be answered. The statement says
"this physical inspection is proceeding with all haste, and a definitive answer on the number and type of any organs retained is expected by the end of February."
Will the families be consulted about this? Will the findings be made known to them?
Counselling is a very important issue. Measure 2 refers to "bereavement counsellors". Perhaps the Department should be more proactive in relation to counselling. It is an important issue for all those families that have been bereaved and, even yet, are still trying coming to terms with what has happened to them. Will all the families be directly contacted? Will it be left up to the families to contact the relatives’ support group or the other organisation that was mentioned by a Member earlier? The Department should be proactive in this.
Can the Minister say how many phone calls or letters her Department has received in relation to this issue? It probably runs into thousands. I know that many people from my constituency have contacted the Department about the matter. We have had phone calls and letters. That correspondence has also been sent to the Minister. Also, will the Minister inform us of the people who contacted the Health Department and had to wait in long phone-call queues when news of the scandal first broke? Have all those people been contacted directly? Have they been made aware of whether any of the organs of their loved ones have been retained? If so, what steps have been taken to address that?
My Colleague Mrs Iris Robinson raised the issue of organ donation. That issue has perhaps been lost in the middle of this scandal. Can the Minister tell us what steps she will be taking to promote organ donation? Many of us carry the wee donor cards relating to our kidneys in case we are the unfortunate victims of an accident. Many people across the Province, and in this Chamber, do that. What we —

Mr Speaker: Order. I urge the Member to come to his question.

Mr Jim Shannon: Those were all questions. What is the Minister doing about organ donation? Can the Minister assure us that the report will be transparent and readily available to all concerned? For instance, will there be lay people on the inquiry committee, not just doctors and consultants? Finally, the last time that the Minister spoke on this matter I think that she referred to the organs that are retained by the universities. That has not been mentioned in her statement today. Can she give us some indication of what has happened to organs retained in universities for research or other purposes?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I thank the Member for his various questions. I never stated — to my recollection— that organs are retained in universities. It does not come within my remit, and therefore I would not be able to make such a definitive statement. As is the practice elsewhere, there are protocols between universities and hospitals. That is something that we need to look at. My officials will check the Hansard records, but I do not believe that I was ever in a position to say such a thing.
Concerning organ donation, I would refer the Member to the answer I gave Kieran McCarthy this morning.
As regards the number of people who contacted the Department, very few, to my knowledge, contacted the Department directly. To date, the Department has received three or four letters and very few calls. The Royal Group of Hospitals has had more than 1,000 calls, and Altnagelvin has had a couple of hundred. People went directly to the trusts involved rather than to the hospitals themselves.
With regard to counselling, the Member referred to the point I made about having a counsellor on the relatives’ support group. That person would give advice and be able to make a contribution to the group in terms of overseeing what needs to be done. That is quite separate from the immediate action that my Department has already taken — which I outlined earlier — to ensure that trusts have been instructed to oversee that they put in place measures to take care of the needs of those relatives within their trust area, specifically the needs of those who live at any distance from the hospitals where the organs are retained.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her very detailed statement. I welcome the statutory inquiry and the Minister’s intention to put in place interim guidance on acceptable practice. I think I speak for all Members when I say that our sympathy and concern goes out to all those who have been notified that their relatives’ organs have been retained. I can think of nothing more distressing than for relatives to be told that parts of their loved ones’ bodies have been retained by hospitals.
Given the Minister’s statement that no organs should be retained without explicit and informed consent, does the legislation under which pathologists carried out their duties — the Coroners Act 1959 — need immediate updating, prior to the inquiry? Will the inquiry also address the Human Tissue Act 1962? How was that legislated for in the first place, and by whom?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I agree that our sympathy for those parents left in a position in which they should never have been is uppermost in our minds. Underlying all of our actions is our utmost desire to do the best we can for them at this point, to ensure that the practice — which previously was standard and which we now say was unacceptable and must change — does change, and that future practice is based firmly on the principle of explicit and informed consent.
I have said that I wish to bring forward a review of legislation, with a view to amending the Human Tissue Act 1962. That comes within the remit of health and social services, and I wish to do that. Earlier, I spoke about that and the fact that it depends on the legislative will of the Assembly. The Coroner’s Act is a different matter, as it does not lie directly within my remit.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I also welcome the Minister’s statement. The debate was most emotive, because we were talking principally about the organs of young children.
The Minister has indicated that there will be a full statutory inquiry under article 54 of the Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. The report is not due for 12 months, but in the interim, while the new legislation is being put on the statute book, there will be prepared new practice guidelines for the Health Service.
12.00
I would like to ask the Minister if there will be ongoing monitoring of trusts while this is happening and if someone will be appointed to ensure that the good practice guidelines are put into place?
We have considered the situation of the parents involved in these cases — and quite rightly so — but these circumstances have also had a devastating effect on hospital staff, and they have in some ways been ignored. Those working with young children and in the pathology departments have felt the effects. We cannot ignore their difficulties, and there has to be some reassurance for those caught up in the situation through no fault of their own.
I ask the Minister to ensure that her Department does all it can to bring trust back to the hospitals. The lack of confidence in organ transplants has already been referred to. There should be a separate programme, ongoing with the investigation, to reassure people, so that confidence in the Health Service is not completely destroyed. It should assure them that organ donation is entirely different and separate from what has happened in the past.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: In relation to the question about guidance, I previously said to the House that a copy of the new guidance drawn up last year was placed in the Assembly Library. I will ensure that the interim guidance is also placed in the Library so that Members will have access to it.
There is not only ongoing monitoring of trusts, with trust management monitoring its own performance in relation to the current guidance; there will also be interim guidance. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the review of the legislation, but in the spirit of the proposed legislation we will be bringing forward, we will ensure that the interim guidance covers hospital practice. That will clearly signal to the public our intention to ensure that present hospital practice — and not just after the inquiry — will be of the highest possible standard.
I am mindful of the current position of staff who are performing a difficult job in trusts and who are trying to cope with a difficult situation. The inquiry will be open so that everyone can put their views forward, and that will include hospital staff. I will expect trusts to demonstrate that they are dealing with this matter fully and openly.

Mr Ivan Davis: As regards the 376 people the Minister mentioned earlier, will she be in a position to indicate to the House, at some stage, the age groups of those people? Were they children, or were they stillborn? Can she give us a figure?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I cannot give such a figure this morning. I will make information available as it comes to me, although I am not sure when such details will be established. Once the inquiry is set up, it will consider what information should be put into its report.

Mr William Hay: The matter we are discussing has been a tragedy for Northern Ireland. I agree with the Chairperson of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee in that the only thing that would satisfy families would be a full, independent public inquiry into this situation. In my own area of Altnagelvin the situation became clear only following complaints from parents.
What role does the Minister see for the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee in the inquiry? Secondly, can she assure the House that it will not be the case of the medical profession investigating itself?

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I reiterate that this is a full statutory inquiry with the powers that any such inquiry has to call for evidence, to hold its meetings in public if it feels that this is necessary, and to engage with the public. It will be full, exhaustive and set up under statute. While I do not want to go into the details, I see its being overseen by a lay person rather than by someone from the medical profession. Once you set up an independent inquiry under statute, it is for the person who is named as the head of the inquiry to work on the terms of reference. It will therefore be for the inquiry to establish how it deals with various groups and representatives and how it fulfils its terms of reference, which I will be announcing shortly.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Inland Waterways: North/South Ministerial Council Sectoral Meeting

Sir John Gorman: I have received notice from the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council waterways meeting held on 29January 2001 in Scarriff.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The second meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in inland waterways sectoral format took place in Scarriff, County Clare, on Monday, 29 January2001. Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, MrDenisHaughey and I represented the Northern Ireland Administration. The Irish Government were represented by SíledeValera TD, Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. I am making this report on behalf of myself and MrHaughey who has approved the report.
The meeting opened with a progress report from the interim chief executive of Waterways Ireland, MrJohn Mahony. The council noted that significant progress has been made both in terms of the development of the organisation and in progressing works on the ground. On LoughErne a number of public moorings have been completely refurbished. A new floating jetty has been placed at Toome on the LowerBann river, and new navigation signs are being erected along the river to improve public safety. In the Republic of Ireland the Limerick navigation scheme, which is an extension to the Shannon navigation, is nearing completion, and this will allow mooring in the heart of the city for the first time. The council gave its consent to plans from Waterways Ireland for compulsory purchase of certain lands necessary for improvement of the Shannon navigation. Work is also proceeding on restoration of the remaining 34 kilometres of the Royal Canal.
The council noted that Waterways Ireland had received the draft final report on the feasibility of re-opening the Ulster Canal prepared by ESB International and Ferguson & McIlveen Consultants, and this will be forwarded to the sponsoring Departments shortly. The council also noted that Waterways Ireland has had useful consultations with Bord Fáilte and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and that boating/cruising on inland navigations is to be promoted as a separate niche market. Waterways Ireland will develop a promotional strategy to complement this initiative. Waterways Ireland has also had meetings with various user groups, including the LoughErne and LowerBann advisory committees, and it facilitated the Erne boat rally and the Youth Cruise 2000 from Killaloe to Enniskillen.
On the organisational front, good progress has been made in getting the headquarters at Enniskillen and the regional offices at Dublin, Carrick-on-Shannon and Scarriff up and running. There are now 22 non-industrial staff based at Enniskillen, while Rivers Agency continues to undertake the operational work in Northern Ireland under a service level agreement. Two premises at DarlingStreet and BelmoreStreet in Enniskillen town centre have been leased to meet the body’s interim accommodation requirements. The council agreed that Waterways Ireland should pursue negotiations on five possible site options for the permanent headquarters, which will be a waterfront development of around 25,000 square feet. The council also approved the options for permanent premises for the three regional offices.
An open competition for the post of permanent chief executive was completed, and the council confirmed the appointment of MrJohnMartin as the new chief executive of Waterways Ireland. The council also approved proposed sterling pay scales for Waterways Ireland, which will enable direct recruitment of staff to proceed.
The council noted that the provisional expenditure out-turn for the 2000 calendar year was estimated at approximately £8·5million, compared to the original budget of £10·5million. This difference is largely due to the impact of the suspension of the devolved arrangements, which caused a delay in the recruitment of staff to the body. The council also considered and agreed Waterways Ireland’s draft action plan for 2001, which included the programme of work and budgetary requirements. The proposed budget for 2001 is £18·8million, and Northern Ireland’s contribution will be approximately £2·6million.
Waterways Ireland’s main objectives for the coming year are the effective management and operation of the inland navigations for which it is responsible, the development of the organisation, the implementation of a capital development programme and meeting equality objectives and new targeting social need (TSN) goals.
Waterways Ireland plans to have 75% of all posts within the body filled by December2001, and it will introduce new financial management and human resource systems to support the development of an effective corporate organisation. The council was pleased to note that Waterways Ireland will be involved in hosting the World Canals Conference in May2001, with venues in Dublin, Belfast and Lisburn. This will provide an excellent opportunity to promote Ireland’s inland waterways to overseas visitors. The council also approved Waterways Ireland’s plans to undertake a review of health and safety standards on all navigations and to complete a preliminary assessment of the by-laws for all navigations.
The North/South Ministerial Council approved Waterways Ireland’s draft equality scheme, which includes a five-year programme for screening all policies and procedures, conducting and consulting on equality impact assessments and monitoring. The scheme will now be submitted to the Equality Commission. The council also gave its approval for Waterways Ireland to proceed to public consultation on its new draft TSN action plan.
The council agreed to meet again in sectoral format before summer2001.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I welcome the Minister’s statement. There has been considerable progress on practical matters, not least on consultation between the two tourist boards. I am, however, interested in the Minister’s comments on the report by Ferguson & McIlveen on the Ulster Canal. Can he forecast the commitment that he and his Department will make to the Ulster Canal project? I am aware that that might be difficult for him at this stage, but we will soon be in a position in which, if we are to move forward with this project, he can discuss commitment.
I congratulate MrJohnMartin on his appointment as chief executive of Waterways Ireland. Can the Minister give us a date by which the whole project will be fully operational, with staffing and permanent sites in place, both in the regions and at headquarters? He has indicated the date by which 75% of operational staff will be in place.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As I said in my report, the updated feasibility study report by ESB International and Ferguson & McIlveen has been completed in draft form. I have not yet received it in the Department, but I expect that to happen within the next week or two. We will then assess what the report says and look at the implications. I have previously said in the House that the Ulster Canal is one of the key capital projects of the future for Waterways Ireland. Half of the canal lies in the Irish Republic, and half lies in Northern Ireland; so, when it is completed, it will connect LoughNeagh to the Erne/Shannon waterways, which will link with the Royal Canal, when it is finally completed, and, thus, right through to Dublin. The Lagan navigation will be the last remaining scheme to be completed before a complete system, running right through the island, is created.
The canal is a huge resource in terms of its tourist potential. That is now properly recognised by the tourist board.
So the Member is right: I cannot give a commitment. The original costs specified in 1998 were around £70 million, and I suspect that if we were to go forward with this, we would probably be talking about roughly £100 million. There is a major problem with how we address resources, so Members should not expect me to give a commitment now. I will say that the Department, Waterways Ireland and I have a commitment to proceed with the Ulster Canal project as best we can; it is a key capital project.
I have already said that the operation of the body was delayed because of suspension. We anticipate that it will be up to full staff — a total of 381 — by 2002. It is building rapidly now, and we are progressing very well, although this involves moving staff in from other Departments, which takes time.
Sites have been identified for the offices outside headquarters. The headquarters office will take slightly longer. The developer’s brief is out at the minute, and a number of sites have been identified. The decision will be made by way of a bidding process, but that is being handled by the property services branch of the Department of the Environment, and that is out of my control. It will come forward with its preferred options in due course, and then we will proceed. However, I suspect that it would not be unreasonable to expect to see headquarters fully up and functional within two to three years.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I want to welcome the Minister’s very progressive statement. It seems that he has been making good headway on the ship on Waterways Ireland. While I have a number of questions for the Minister, I particularly want to welcome the hosting of the World Canals Conference in Dublin, Belfast and Lisburn this year. Can the Minister tell us how these venues were selected?
I also want to welcome the development of the tourist niche of boating and cruising and the co-operation between Bord Fáilte and the Tourist Board.
I welcome too Mr John Martin, the new chief executive.
Will the Minister tell the Assembly if the Sinn Féin Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is still a suitable person to attend future North/South Ministerial meetings on Waterways, or has that changed? David Trimble told his party executive that UUP Ministers will no longer participate in North/South Ministerial meetings. Can the Minister confirm if this change in position was discussed at the North/South meeting?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The World Canals Conference is a very prestigious one, and we all rightly welcome the fact that it is coming and that Waterways Ireland will host it.
I am not aware of how the venues were selected, but I do know, for example, that Lisburn Borough Council spent large sums of money on its section of the Lagan navigation. Presumably Dublin and Belfast were chosen because they are the two main cities. However, I do not know exactly why those venues were selected for the conference.
I agree with the Member’s comments about tourist co-operation. One of the main reasons is the huge tourist potential that exists for this type of resource when it is properly in place. Experience in other parts of Europe, not least in the Irish Republic, demonstrates that genuine tourist jobs are available when this type of resource is put in place properly.
The question of a Sinn Féin representative is a matter for the First Minister, and I believe that he has responded to it within the last few days. It is not my responsibility to nominate Ministers.

Mr Jim Wilson: I welcome the Minister’s report, which is informative and interesting. Considering the disaster of the two major fish kills at the trout hatchery at Florencecourt on the Erne in recent days, perhaps the Minister, like me, will think that a question about a North/South meeting of Waterways Ireland is relatively unimportant. However, my question is important to the future use of Lough Erne as a fishery and as recreational water. I hope that the Minister is in a position to elaborate on the nature and extent of progress on the refurbishment of Lough Erne’s moorings.
I would like to tease out Mr ONeill’s earlier question. A recent newspaper report suggested that as early as October 2001, the Minister, along with his counterpart in the Republic and Waterways Ireland, may be in a position to make optimistic sounds about the future of the Ulster Canal. How optimistic is the Minister about having positive news about the reopening of the Ulster Canal as early as October?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I will take the three elements of the question and answer them in reverse order.
I do not have a great deal to add about the Ulster Canal other than to say that, as indicated to Mr ONeill, the draft report will be with the Department shortly, and we will assess it. I am not aware of any newspaper report. However, we will deal with the report and issue it as quickly as possible. I give an undertaking to Mr ONeill and to Mr J Wilson that as soon as I am able to, I will share the report with the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure.
Mr J Wilson is right when he says that there has been another major disaster on the Erne at the Melvin Enhancement Company’s hatchery. Although this falls outside the remit of Waterways Ireland, it would be wrong not to mention the incident, since Waterways Ireland, the Erne and the Melvin Enhancement Company complement each other in that they seek tourist revenue and jobs. An earlier pollution incident killed large numbers of fish, and, more recently, an act of wanton vandalism poisoned thousands. That is a tragedy for a non-profit-making facility that promotes Lough Erne’s genetically pure brown trout, a natural strain of fish which is a major selling point for the future of our fisheries. It is an absolute disgrace that not only have thousands of fish been killed, but jobs have also been lost.
Capital works in the Irish Republic are the responsibility of the Government in Dublin. Capital works in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Government here. Work is ongoing through the Rivers Agency and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on public jetties on Lough Erne at Muckross, Ballinaleck, Magho and Inish Davar, and on a new floating jetty on the Lower Bann at Toome. Work will continue on the refurbishment of jetties and on the maintenance of navigation markers, et cetera, and we are also looking at plans to review existing navigations.
So if there is not a programme in place, one is certainly being built up. We are aware that our canal system is embryonic compared to the Irish Republic’s, on which large sums of money have recently been spent. We have much work to do. As I have already said, there is a resource implication, yet it remains an exciting project and possibility, not just because of the recreational value to people living here, but also because of its potential for earning revenue from tourists.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: The report indicates that significant progress has been made with the inland waterways body. The headquarters is located in County Fermanagh, and I would like to ask the Minister how many people are employed there, and whether his Department has employment targets for the headquarters for the next year?
I join with the Minister in condemning what appears to have been a deliberate act of putting chemicals into the water system at the hatchery. As he said, we are all concerned about possible job losses, and I have no doubt that some will result from that. We have to keep in mind that many people have worked over the years in a voluntary capacity to bring this into being. It is deplorable that so much effort has been wasted. Is the Minister in a position to say if he is satisfied, given that a poison was put into the system, that adequate measures are in place to contain it, as the system feeds into larger and wider systems important for fishing and other considerations?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As I said on a previous occasion, it is anticipated that 70 people will be employed at headquarters. MrGallagher is quite right. Look at the size of Enniskillen and compare the number of jobs there with the number that would be created pro rata in Belfast: hundreds or thousands of jobs. Enniskillen is a small town, and 70jobs will have a real economic impact.
I am not aware of the precise size of the workforce. I think it is currently about 18, but building rapidly. It might be more than that now. I previously reported 18, so it probably is more than that now. We expect headquarters to reach its proper complement within the year, as recruitment is ongoing.
As far as the hatchery is concerned, I agree with the Member that that has an important implication for tourist jobs on down the line. I am satisfied that the issue is being properly addressed. The RUC and the company have been active in investigating the incident, and the company is not doing anything other than what it is supposed to. I have visited the facility, and I am quite sure that it takes environmental issues very seriously. While I cannot be absolutely specific about the volume of poison released into the watercourses, I am sure that if that is what happened, it was not due to any negligence on the part of the management but rather to an act of wanton vandalism.

Mr Jim Shannon: The Minister has already recognised the great benefits of water-based tourism, to which the inland waterways report that he has brought to the Chamber testifies. Many in the Province, even those without canals in their area, recognise the tourism spin-off. The Minister spoke about the Ulster Canal as just one of the projects. That is one that the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee has looked at and supports. We would like to see how it would work. Has the Minister received any indications about funding? Will it come from private sources, or will some of it come from the Government? We would also like to see the economic benefit and spin-offs that will come to all the areas — bed-and-breakfast accommodation, restaurants and cafés in all the small villages and areas along the edge of canals.
Lough Erne is not the only place with attractive areas for boating and water-based activities. Will other parts of the Province also benefit? What role does the Northern Ireland Tourist Board have in promoting the waterways? I hope that they make a much better job of promoting the waterways than they have with angling.
I want to take up two other issues mentioned by the Minister. First, he said that Waterways Ireland underspent its budget for the calendar year 2000 by some £2 million. Expenditure was £8·5 million, and the original budget was £10·5 million. Will that £2 million be carried over into the second year, or is it lost?
Secondly, he said that the Rivers Agency continues to undertake operational work in Northern Ireland under a service level agreement. Does the Rivers Agency have the necessary finance to carry out the work sufficiently and to the benefit of tourism? Tourism is a big thing in all of our constituencies, and I hope that we will all see the benefits. As the Minister lives in my constituency — or at least in the same district council area — I am sure that, like myself, he will want to see tourism promoted in Strangford.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am very keen to see tourism enhanced in Strangford — indeed, in all parts of Northern Ireland. I have to remind the House that Waterways Ireland is purely a navigation body, dealing with navigable waterways. Currently, there are no navigable waterways under the control of Waterways Ireland in Strangford. There is the Ulster Canal, the Lagan navigation and the Newry/Portadown Canal, although it has its own challenges. There is also a canal at Coalisland and the Lower Bann navigation. Once those are navigable, Waterways Ireland will take them over.
The Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) takes promotion seriously, working in co-operation with Bord Fáilte on this initiative and in promoting this resource worldwide. I cannot comment, as the NITB is not answerable to my Department — it is answerable to Sir Reg Empey and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment — but I have no doubt that it takes its responsibilities seriously. I cannot comment on how it has performed in the past, but everybody has room for improvement, including ourselves.
There is an underspend of £2 million in the budget, which will be carried over and not lost. I am not clear on the exact mechanism, but it will be carried over to the next financial year. Normally within Government here, unspent money goes back to the centre for redistribution. I assume that that is the principle. I will write to the Member on that, giving the precise mechanism for ensuring that the money is not lost.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh ráiteas an Aire, agus is maith go dtáinig an Chomhairle i gceann a chéile coicís ó shin. Ba mhaith liom an tAire a insint domh cá bhfuil na háiteanna atá faoi chaibidil ag an Chomhairle agus í ag cinneadh ar cá háit a bhfuil an phríomhoifig bhuan le lonnú.
I welcome the Minister’s statement. The meeting that he described was very welcome. What possible sites for the permanent headquarters are under discussion?
In point 7 of the statement there is a reference to the very negative impact of the last suspension of political institutions on the progress of the body and that it was particularly detrimental in the area of staff recruitment.
Will the Minister agree that the collapse of political institutions, wilfully being planned for by his own party leadership, ahead of the May election, will similarly have a disastrous impact on the progress of Waterways Ireland? Did the Minister inform the inland waterways sectoral meeting of the council of his party leader’s intention to continue the illegal ban on nominating Sinn Fein Ministers to the council?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: Five sites are currently being considered for the permanent headquarters in Enniskillen. Two are adjacent on the Sligo road; one is on the water’s edge, close to the Ardhowen theatre; one is at Derrychara, opposite the Erneside shopping centre, and the other, known as the Brooke, is in the centre of the town.
I strongly believe that there should be a waterfront development. It will be of around 25,000square feet. In other words, it will be for customers, users and tourists and not simply an office accommodation for staff.
With regard to the other part of the question, about the collapse of political institutions — institutions that we are all striving to retain — the Member talked about the collapses "being planned for". Well, he probably knows more about that than I do. I know of nobody in my party who is planning for the collapse of the political institutions.
Regarding discussions of the "ban", as the Member put it, at the meeting in Scarriff in County Clare two weeks ago, we stuck to the agenda of Waterways Ireland. This was the North/South Ministerial Council in sectoral format; we were there to discuss Waterways Ireland and its business, and that is exactly what we did discuss.

Mr Sean Neeson: I welcome the Minister’s statement and the fact that at long last, the potential of inland waterways in Northern Ireland has been recognised. At the end of his statement the Minister stated that Waterways Ireland had the powers for compulsory purchase on the river Shannon. Would such powers also be applied to Northern Ireland?
Secondly, what plans do he and his Department have for the development or promotion of the heritage, particularly the industrial heritage of Northern Ireland’s inland waterways?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: As regards the development of waterways and, as Mr Shannon mentioned, funding for this, funding will obviously have to be in the form of some cocktail of public, private and European money, and that mix of funding will be able to be determined only as things are developed.
The Member is right to say that there are powers of compulsory purchase in the Republic. There will also be powers of compulsory purchase in Northern Ireland if we find it necessary, for example, to further advance the re-creation of the Ulster Canal, since large parts of it have been abandoned. It is anticipated that there is a possibility that compulsory purchase may be necessary. I hope that it is not; that is something which should be done only as a last resort.
The industrial heritage of Northern Ireland is an important issue and one that is very much in our minds as we develop the waterways. As we go forward, things like environmental assessments will have to be done — indeed, environmental proofing has already been done in respect of the Ulster Canal, and that will become more concentrated and focused as we move forward with different parts of the canal.
The environmental heritage aspects of our canals need to be safeguarded. It is important to reach a balance between preserving the heritage features of former canals, protecting natural environment and providing for modern cruising needs.
We will have the formal environmental impact assessment, but we need to see waterways developed as living assets which cater for modern usage with appropriate environmental safeguards. It cannot simply be the preservation of historic features for historic purposes.
When they were originally constructed, canals were used by narrow-gauge barges dragged by horses. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that there should be a horse-drawn canal resource in Northern Ireland — that would be the wrong way to approach the matter. As I said, we must try to safeguard them all, but we need a balance. For example, modern boats are wider than the original narrow-gauge barges. If the canal is made solely for narrow-gauge barges, it will effectively preclude, for example, all the boats currently available for hire on Lough Erne.
A balance must be struck and found. We will attempt to do that. Another feature of a modern canal system is the use of card technology to operate the lock, rather that a lock-keeper with a wheel and a handle to turn. Therefore although it will be a modern system catering for modern usage, it will preserve and be informed by historic features. However, they will not be preserved purely for historic purposes, but also as living assets catering for modern usage.

Ms Jane Morrice: I too want to comment on the exciting potential of this initiative and body. My question has been partially clarified already. It relates to the tourism potential of Waterways Ireland. Will it focus simply on tourism for its revenue, or is there scope, for example, for freight and passenger transport to be used on these waterways? Is that possibility being examined?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I am not aware that freight carriage has been examined. I am not sure that that would be viable, but I have no doubt that if the canals were operating, it would happen if the operators decided that it was viable. Market forces would determine that type of matter.
It is not just about tourism, of course. There is a strong element of economic regeneration, particularly in the countryside. Members may recollect that by and large, canals go through areas of countryside that are often deprived and far from urban areas. The issue of new targeting social need (TSN) is also strongly addressed through the regeneration of the canals and the economic regeneration of rural communities. When we make the case for resources, one of our arguments will be that this type of investment addresses TSN.
The issue is much wider than simply tourism, but, as I said, we focused on tourism. Obviously, this is worth doing. There are recreational aspects for the local community too, but economic regeneration can act as a generator in the countryside, and that has been the experience in the Irish Republic. I have no doubt that that will be our experience too.

Mrs Joan Carson: I welcome the Minister’s report on the second sectoral meeting of Waterways Ireland and several points in particular which concern the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The feasibility study on the canal is especially welcome, because it would open up tourism in that area. I also welcome the creation of some jobs in the Fermanagh and Enniskillen areas, and, in particular, the refurbishment of public moorings on the Lough Erne system. Any improvement to the moorings will help the local boating, angling and, especially, tourism communities.
I ask the Minister to seek the development of more moorings and jetties for the Lough Erne system at the next sectoral meeting. The matter should be high on the agenda. We need more moorings and jetties. A large number of boats are coming into the Erne system, and there are not always sufficient places for tourists to tie up. That is particularly important, and I encourage him to put that on the agenda.
I notice that boating and cruising on the system is to be promoted as a separate niche market and I welcome that. However, cruise firms on the Lough Erne system have had a particularly hard time in recent years because of the disparity between the punt and the pound and many bookings are going to the South of Ireland. The Minister said that that has nothing to do with him, but something should be done to help and encourage the hire firms in the Fermanagh area.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: It is not that the disparity between the punt and the pound has nothing to do with me, it is something that is out of my control and out of the control of the Assembly. However, it is a matter that focuses minds, not just in this situation, but in others also. There has been some coming together in the currencies, but there is still a very large disparity. I am not entirely clear how that matter should be addressed other than by providing a product in Fermanagh that is second to none.
With regard to Waterways Ireland, some of the ongoing work will carry through the capital programme for 2001. For example, they are refurbishing jetties on the Erne, and there is ongoing maintenance of navigation markers. There is also a review of the Bann, with a new pair of lock gates going in on the Lower Bann. There is the construction and completion of works on the Shannon navigation at Limerick City. So, the ongoing work is enhancing the entire system, and it includes the construction of the first of six road bridges on the Royal Canal to allow the canal to enter the system.
Once the system gets into operation, all parts of it will benefit. I have no doubt that Lough Erne and Fermanagh will benefit as well — as they have done to an extent already with the location of headquarters and staff in Enniskillen.

Mr David Hilditch: The agency has held meetings with various user groups, and the Minister has named two as examples. Will he further expand on this information, particularly from the Northern Ireland context, including the ports? Will he also indicate how much of the £18·8 million action plan budget for 2001 will be of direct benefit to Northern Ireland?

Mr Michael McGimpsey: I reported on the user groups and gave those examples because I understand that Waterways Ireland has been dealing with a number of user groups. I cannot give an exhaustive list here, because I do not have the information with me. If the Member wishes, I can provide him with that information.
Of the £8·5million capital expenditure for this year, Northern Ireland’s contribution is £750,000. The £8·5 million will provide, for example, for the organisation as a whole, £3·45million for capital, £4million for maintenance and £1million for administration, professional and technical staff. I cannot be precise as to staff numbers, but they are increasing rapidly this year from 18 to 250 as people come in from various Government bodies and agencies, both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland. Next year those numbers will increase again.
We are responsible for capital projects within Northern Ireland. So, for example, the funding for the Lagan navigation and our half of the Ulster Canal will have to be found within Northern Ireland. MrShannon made a point about funding. I anticipate a cocktail of public and private finance, with, perhaps, money also coming from Europe or other sources.
I cannot say how capital will be drawn down or how capital resources will be addressed in the future. At the moment, the main project is the new headquarters in Enniskillen. I am not sure how many millions that will cost, but it will be a substantial building on the waterfront, comprising 25,000 square feet.
The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is also considering the Ulster Canal and other capital projects that I mentioned, such as the refurbishment of jetties and the construction of new floating jetties. That work programme will continue to develop. I shall keep the House and the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee informed as appropriate.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement; it shows that progress has been made. It is important that Waterways Ireland make progress. It is unfortunate, however, that Fermanagh will not be a venue for the World Canals Conference. Fermanagh has been the home of Waterways Ireland for some time and has a strong connection with the subject, through the Ballyconnell Canal, one of the better recent developments. However, I am sure that that link will be developed.
A statement from the Minister’s Colleague, Denis Haughey, about the Coalisland Canal has already appeared in the press. What progress has been made on linking the Coalisland Canal to the Ulster Canal, assuming that that project progresses as the Minister envisages? The reopening of the Ulster Canal is an important step in the opening of the waterways. As the Minister says, it is important that we have a working canal, not just one of historical interest.
The problems with attracting tourists could be eased by the introduction of a single currency. As one solution, the Minister could endorse an all-Ireland strategy and policy that would ensure that there was one currency throughout the island of Ireland. As an interim solution, we could use the euro. In the long term, we must focus on the all-Ireland dimension if Waterways Ireland is to attract visitors to the island of Ireland.

Mr Michael McGimpsey: The Member mentioned the disparity between the punt and the pound. He has a particular political view on that, and it is one that I do not share. It is also a view — if I must make a political point — that most people in Northern Ireland do not share. That is what the agreement and the projects and processes that we are working on are about. That kind of financial issue is important, but not so overwhelmingly important as to justify changing our entire political philosophy, however much the Member might desire that.
I have nothing to add about the World Canals Conference, but as I receive information I shall share it with the Committee and with Mr Molloy. The Department recognises Fermanagh’s importance, which is why the headquarters is in Enniskillen. The conference will consider experience and best practice in other parts of the world and will try to benefit from those.
I have received a number of inquiries about the Coalisland Canal. It is the responsibility of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, not Waterways Ireland. There are no plans for it at present, because resources are not available. However, there is no question of allowing that property — some 4 kilometres long — to disappear from the Department’s control. The Department has custodial responsibility and will maintain that. I share the aspiration that the Coalisland Canal can again become the navigation that it once was.
The sitting was suspended at 12.54 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Street Trading Bill: Further Consderation Stage

Mr Speaker: Members will note that there is only one amendment on the Marshalled List. Clauses 1 to 8 have had no amendments proposed to them. I therefore propose, by leave of the House, to take those clauses en bloc at this time, and similarly for the other clauses to which there is no amendment.
Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 (Discretionary grounds for refusing an application)

Mr Maurice Morrow: I beg to move amendment1: In page 7, line 1, leave out subparagraph (v) and insert
"(v) the nature of the articles, things or services in which the applicant wishes to trade is such that their sale or supply, or their preparation for sale or supply, would adversely affect the general amenity of the area in which the applicant wishes to trade;".
Members will be aware that at the Consideration Stage I accepted an amendment that would allow a district council to refuse an application for a street trading licence where the sale or preparation of the goods would have an adverse effect on the amenity of the area. At that time I said that I had some concerns about the precise wording of the amendment and advised Members that I might wish to tidy it up at the Further Consideration Stage. The amendment I have tabled introduces minor revisions of the wording to maintain consistency with the other provisions in the Bill, but does not alter the effect of the sub-paragraph.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Street Trading Bill, which now stands referred to the Speaker.

Sheep Ban (Silent Valley)

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on those Ministers responsible to make compensation available for farmers who are suffering financially as a result of the Silent Valley sheep ban in the Mournes.
Perhaps before I begin, Mr Speaker, I could raise a point of order. As you can see from the wording of the motion I am clearly asking that Ministers — plural — be in attendance and the wording of the motion was designed to achieve that. I understand that the Minister for Regional Development is going to respond to the motion, and I thank him for that. However, both Ministers who have a direct responsibility, the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, indicated that they wanted to participate in the debate, and I phrased the motion in such a way that they could.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member may choose to phrase the motion whatever way he likes, but that does not make it in order for more than one Minister to respond to it. It is not in order to do so, save in the exceptional circumstances of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister who have a different constitutional position.
It is only in order for one Minister to respond on behalf of the Executive. It may be one Minister or another, but it can only be one Minister. If it were to be more than one Minister, it could be two, and there are other circumstances in which it could be three or more. The House could be in a dilemma if each Minister did not say precisely the same thing and the question for the House in those circumstances would be, "Which Minister spoke for the Executive?" That is not a dilemma which I wish to place before the House.
Indeed, as the Member himself will be aware, in this particular matter, and with respect to the two Ministers he is speaking of, he had the problem of two Ministers appearing to say different things and laid it upon my shoulders to seek some resolution of the matter. Not wanting to voluntarily put myself in that position again, nor place the Assembly in such a position on this or any other matter, I have made the ruling that one Minister shall be responsible for responding. On this occasion, the Minister who has come forward — and I assume it has been agreed that he will respond — is the Minister for Regional Development, who is in his place.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Undoubtedly I will get an opportunity to include a few comments in response as I go through what I have to say on the issue.
First, I welcome the opportunity to bring this issue to the attention of the Assembly. It is one that has been affecting sheep farmers in the particular catchment area of the Silent Valley for some time now. The matter should have been before us a bit earlier because of its inherent urgency. The particular farmers involved have been faced with huge difficulties regarding the grazing of their sheep and this has lead to immense financial problems. It is time someone took responsibility for compensating those farmers.
Another matter causing me huge concern — and I mentioned it under a point of order but will include it now as part of my speech — is the fact that, although my motion calls on all Ministers responsible, there is only one Minister here to respond to the motion. If my motion was accepted as genuine for tabling before Members today then it should have included a response from all Ministers responsible. That is not a ruling I can make, but it is my view nevertheless.

Mr Speaker: Order. It is commonplace to refer to more than one Minister in motions. In questions and in motions in other places the reference is most commonly to, in that situation, Her Majesty’s Government, which consists of many Ministers.
However, only one Minister will reply on behalf of the Executive. The fact that more than one Minister is referred to in the Member’s motion is entirely competent and proper. He may refer to the responsibilities of a number of Ministers, and to their actions. That is also entirely proper and in order, but it is nevertheless the case that only one Minister will respond. I trust that I have made that clear.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I now realise why we put such burdens on such strong shoulders.
Before I continue with the substantive part of the motion, there is another issue that has caused me serious concern outside this Chamber. There was a news report this morning about sheep grazing in the catchment area. It caused me considerable concern because, according to the report, this has been going on for some time. Why did they choose to issue that report today? It creates a big question mark in my mind. Is it an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue? Who encouraged the media to look at that issue yesterday? What was the reason behind it?
The real issue here is the 115 farmers suffering, in some cases, an estimated loss of £4,320 — that has been worked out by an agricultural expert. There are two issues that I must explain for the benefit of Members. First of all, by not having their sheep on the mountain, the farmers lose out on grants that they would otherwise be entitled to. Secondly, because the farmers have had to take their sheep off the mountain, they have had to use their lowland pastures to graze the sheep. Consequently they have not been able to obtain their winter fodder stock, and they have had to buy in food to keep their sheep going. That is where most of the farmers have incurred their biggest loss.
I have said, on the record, that I appreciate the Water Service’s attempt to prevent cryptosporidium from reaching the drinking water of my constituents and those of my Colleagues. However, in an effort to distance itself from the obvious evidence that the Silent Valley was not adequately protected against such infection, and that the conduit running from the reservoir for some 35 miles was leaking, the Department has ensured that the sheep farmers have shouldered all the blame.
Why was this reservoir not adequately protected against infection, when every other reservoir in the area is? Why was the conduit allowed to fall into such disrepair? And why, when officials have admitted that there is no evidence to link these animals to the infection, are farmers now paying the price for the inadequacies of others?
All the evidence strongly suggests that the conduit was to blame for the infection. I would like to explain. The old conduit from the Silent Valley, which brings the mains supply into areas of South Belfast, Lisburn and north Down, is gravity-fed. That means that if a crack or a break occurs in the line, it will suck in material from outside as it passes. The new conduit, which is currently being installed, has a pressurised component that ensures that if a crack occurs, it will force the water out, thus not allowing outside contamination to enter.
On page one of the Eastern Health and Social Services report published in November2000, it states clearly
"The highest notification rates among children were in the area from Saintfield northwards which is suggestive that the cause of outbreak was ingress in the middle section of the conduit."
This was far away from the Silent Valley. Indeed, the middle, older section of the pipe was the first to be replaced, indicating an urgency to get rid of the damaged section. If it were all the fault of the sheep, why would the Water Service go to such lengths? The report confirms that
"outbreaks of water-related cryptosporidiosis do not just happen. There appears to be a strong correlation between outbreaks and situations where an inadequacy was identified in the treatment provided, or in the operation of the treatment process."
The difficulty for the public in all of this is to fully realise that, even today, the actual source of that original outbreak is not traceable and remains presently untraceable, which must be a cause for major public concern. I have a letter from the Water Service dated 13September 2000, which states
"The link between the grazing of sheep and the risk of cryptosporidium in the water supplies is well established."
There is no further explanation. This infers that the link was firmly established, although this report says that it was not. In a meeting with Health and Social Services officials in November to discuss the report published by the Eastern Health and Social Services Board, Dr Liz Mitchell informed me that, in the Silent Valley case, there was absolutely no evidence to link the faeces of the sheep with the cryptosporidium outbreak.
Surprisingly, not one of the sheep that traditionally graze on the mountains was ever tested. One would have thought that to find out whether these animals were the cause, the simple and honest thing to do would be to test them. Not one of them has been tested. Why? Surely the Department wants to pinpoint the culprit. Perhaps the reason for this — and this is an interesting sign that all of the things that go on in Departments are not necessarily the Ministers’ responsibility — is to be seen in MrCampbell’s admission that the Department was under pressure from the media and had to come up with an answer immediately. MrCampbell stated in a letter to you, MrSpeaker, in response to the very issues that you were raising to me with those broad shoulders earlier, on 12January2001 that
"the decision to extend the ban had, in fact, emerged more quickly than intended, due to questioning of officials in the media on 4 September."
Who is running the Department of Regional Development? Is it the Minister or the ‘Belfast Telegraph’? MrCampbell made this statement in an attempt to explain what appeared to me to be his misleading the House. Now you have decided, MrSpeaker, that he did not deliberately mislead the House. MrCampbell admits that he did not consult with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development before he made the decision to extend the ban. He maintains that both he and his officials did liaise with that Department’s officials. He stated in this Chamber on 11September2000 that they had liaised and were continuing to liaise with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. I do not know what kind of liaisons he referred to, but they are certainly not to the benefit of our farmers. To liaise means to communicate and co-operate. To consult means to seek advice. I do not think there is a huge difference. Mr Campbell and his officials did not consult the Department of Agriculture. Had they done so —

Mr Jim Wells: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The motion before us calls on the Ministers to provide financial compensation to the farmers affected. I have prepared my contribution on that basis. The Member for South Down has had some time, but it all seems to be an attack on the Minister for Regional Development and his handling of this case. As far as I can see, the Member has not as yet dealt with the motion. How much more time will he be given before he comes to the subject of the debate?

Mr Speaker: The Chair frequently has to be patient if it is to see things coming to their point and conclusion. I am sure that the proposer of the motion has heard what the Member has said.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Before the point of order, I was trying to make a very important point. I will make it again. Had there been proper consultation between the two Departments, Regional Development would have been aware that had it waited until earlier this year before making its decision, the Department of Agriculture could this year have introduced the force majeure regulations that last year secured the grant aid, thereby preventing its loss. Members, therefore — like Mr Wells, who made the point of order — would not have to go around using sleight of hand methods to find some other way round the regulations to restore the situation. They could have been dealing with it frankly, honestly and openly.
As I said, the loss of that grant could have been avoided. There was a lack of consultation. Those who did not embark on consultation are therefore directly responsible for that loss of income. That is where the buck should finally stop.
The loss of subsidies is not the only concern. One of the most serious implications in all of this is that the tradition of sheep farming in the Mournes is likely to become extinct as a result of this ban. The Water Service has decided that the sheep will not be allowed back onto the mountain until the barrier is complete. The estimated date is 2003-04 and this, as we all know from our experience of forward planning, is probably a very optimistic target. Lambs born in that period will not have the chance to learn from their mothers where or how to graze a particular piece of land.
Members should be aware that the grazing tradition in the Mournes is very old indeed. It is probably early, or even pre-Christian, in origin. The practice was known as "booleying", where farmers, their families and their flocks moved entirely from the lowlands in the spring or early summer to graze the higher Mournes. They have done that for generations untold. Evidence can still be seen in the higher Mournes, where there are little round patches. Those were the sites of the booley huts. That has come down to us from that period. If the sheep do not know which area to graze in, and if they are simply put up on the mountain, they will wander all over the place.
They could turn up in Rostrevor, Kilkeel, or anywhere. It is important each year that the lambs go up with their mothers, and graze the same areas that their mothers grazed in the past, so that they know where the grazing is. The circle will be broken if that does not happen, and the old tradition will be lost forever.
If and when the filter-bed is put in place and sheep are allowed to return to the Mournes it will just not be possible to operate that system. In those circumstances, a meagre request might be for the Department to relent on its decision during those months that everyone has established as representing the least hazard — August, September and early October. That might be sufficient to allow the pasturage tradition to continue. The Minister might consider relenting somewhat on that.
I come back to the overall issue of compensation. The farmers themselves are now seeing their livelihoods disappearing before their very eyes. Of the 115-odd farmers involved in farming in the Mournes, not everyone is as dependent on the grazing as others are. However, a large number of those farmers are facing financial ruin because of the sheep grazing being removed. As a direct result of the ban, for example, farmers have to use extra fertiliser —

Mr Speaker: Order. I draw the proposer’s attention to the fact that this is a time-limited debate. There are a number of other Members who wish to contribute, and there is also the Minister’s winding-up speech. We are now 20 minutes into the 90-minute debate, so I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I am glad of the instruction. As a direct result of the ban, farmers are having to use extra fertiliser and are losing out on silage as animals have eaten up their winter feed. To pay for these factors the farmers are selling lambs and cattle at a much reduced rate and will not be able to afford to replace them. One farmer in my constituency can no longer afford to pay for childcare or afford to drive the children to school. These are genuine hardship cases. He has had to take on extra work, and he has even enrolled in an IT course because he is considering giving up farming entirely. That is after a farming tradition of 300 years in his family. That is the reality.
I ask the Minister for Regional Development — who I believe is directly responsible because he issued the ban — to come up with a package of compensation, in consultation with his Colleagues, to redress the situation and help these farmers. They need to be helped through the four or five years before they are able to graze their flocks again on the Mournes. It is also necessary for that pasturage tradition to remain unbroken so that the flocks will know where to go when the filter-bed provision is made.

Mr Speaker: Given the limited time available, and the number of Members that have put their names down to speak, I shall not permit Members to go on longer than 10 minutes. The Minister responding will have a maximum of 15 minutes, which is the normal rule of thumb for a debate lasting an hour and a half. Whatever time remains can then be returned to the tender mercies of the proposer for his winding-up speech.

Mr Alan McFarland: Cryptosporidium poses a very serious threat to humans, especially the elderly, children and the infirm. As many will know, there were two attacks last year. The first, in April and May, laid low a number of people in Lisburn, Belfast and my own constituency of North Down. The second was the famous attack in Lisburn — in the Lagmore conduit.
The first attack was quite clearly tracked back to the water supply from the Silent Valley. It was tracked back, as I understand it, to animal causes. Members will recall that the scientists were able to identify human causes for the Lagmore conduit attack. It is possible to identify where the cryptosporidium has come from. It is clear that the initial attack in April was from animal sources, and it seems to have come from the Silent Valley water supply.
There is clearly a need to devise whatever protection measures we can to stop this happening. As we discovered in the second attack, it is extremely unpleasant and very dangerous. It is understandable that the sheep — one possible source — were removed from the catchment area. I understand the Member for South Down’s concern about losing sheep from the Mournes. I was brought up in the Sperrins, and the joy of seeing sheep on the mountains is something that should be experienced by those who have not done so. However, we have to be practical about this. If there is a possibility — indeed a strong possibility — that the cryptosporidium came from that source, then that source should be removed.
It is my understanding that farmers have been permitted to graze their sheep in the Mourne catchment area, although the land belongs to the Department for Regional Development — the Water Service. It is a custom and practice — a tradition that has grown up — that farmers are allowed, between April and October, to graze their sheep on this land. Presumably the farmers have land upon which they keep their sheep between October and the end of March. It is not as if it is the only place where the sheep can be kept. We have a concern, a removal of the possible source of cryptosporidium and somewhere else that the farmers can keep their sheep.
Compensation, however, is a different matter. We have heard an enormous amount, as Mr Wells has already said, about where this all went wrong and who is at fault. However, the compensation issue is a different one. If we all accept that there is a danger and that steps have been taken to nullify that, where possible, for a set period until the new measures to make sure that the water is absolutely pure are put in place, then compensation is a different issue.
We are all concerned. We hear weekly about the plight of the farmers. No one can be left untouched by their problems at the moment. However, the compensation issue is not directly connected to cryptosporidium. There may be a case for the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to look at some form of compensation. As anyone who attends this Chamber at all regularly will know, the Department for Regional Devlopment’s work has been underfunded over many years. It is a potential disaster area in terms of cryptosporidium outbreaks. The water piping and water treatment plants need to be renewed. There is an enormous infrastructure cost. I would rather see any spare money that the Minister for Regional Development has going towards fixing these pipes against the possible ingress of cryptosporidium to make sure that this does not happen again. He might encourage the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to see whether she has a few shekels left to help the farmers out.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr Jim Wells: I will be speaking to the motion, unlike others who, perhaps, will use it as a vehicle to launch attacks on various Departments. One cannot underestimate the devastating effect of this ban on sheep farming in the Mournes. One hundred and fifteen farmers have been affected and, crucially, 9,000acres of grazing land have been taken out of circulation. It must be emphasised that there is simply no other available land in south Down to which farmers can move.
MrMcFarland asked where farmers keep their sheep in winter. In many cases, they are kept under cover or in enclosures in which they are fed hay, et cetera. This fodder has to be brought in, and farmers simply cannot afford to have their sheep enclosed and fed in this expensive way during the summer. That simply cannot happen.
Landowners have grazed their animals on this area for generations, going as far back as the nineteenth century when the land was owned by current farmers’ great-grandfathers. Many farmers still have the original title deeds of this land which state their right to graze animals in the Silent Valley catchment area, but when the Belfast Water Commissioners decided to build the Silent Valley reservoir, those rights were bought out. Nonetheless, a tradition has continued whereby the same farmers rent or lease the land for grazing on an annual basis. They pay a relatively modest amount to a Castlewellan-based estate agent, and at Kilkeel a register is kept of the names of those who have grazed the land and for how long.
Therefore no absolute legal right obliges the Department to allow these farmers to graze. I accept this, but I believe that a very strong, moral right, based on previous practice, still exists. The ban could not have come at a worse time for the farming community of south Down. According to estimates, the income of farmers in the peripheral areas of Northern Ireland is as low as £22aweek. I can confirm MrONeill’s statement that farmers are in a desperate situation at the moment because of this, and because of the very low price for sheep meat and wool. I know of one farmer who has been forced to get a job delivering ‘Yellow Pages’ to try to supplement his income, while others are taking jobs in the electoral offices. They are doing anything they can to get round this problem. This terrible blow came at a time when farmers were already suffering tremendous financial stress.
One point that MrONeill did not highlight is the conservation implications of this ban. A certain pattern of grazing is required to sustain the high quality environment which exists within the Mourne wall. Too much grazing leads to a loss of vegetation, but no grazing at all leads to the growth of rank vegetation, which destroys the very interesting flora of the area. If there is no grazing over the next threeorfouryears, the conservation value of the Mournes will be irreparably damaged. It must be emphasised that farmers have never been in any way to blame for this crisis — they are the innocent victims of the situation. But, like MrONeill and others, I have been leading various delegations to meet with the relevant Ministers. We had a very constructive meeting with the Minister of Agriculture and, only last week, we had a very useful meeting with the Minister for Regional Development.
MrKelly from the Water Service explained in very clear terms the precise dilemma faced by the Minister. The law is very clear: it is a criminal offence to allow more than one cryptosporidium oocyst per 10litres of water. If that were allowed to happen, the Department would be liable in law. Once the scientists tested the water and found the existence of one oocyst per 10litres, the Department’s hands were tied, and it simply had to take action. The Water Service informed us last Wednesday that cryptosporidium can be clearly traced back to the Silent Valley reservoir and to sheep.
I fully accept MrONeill’s assertion that doubt still exists, but clearly the doubt is such that, in the light of this information, it would have been irresponsible of the Minister to fail to take action — and he would not have been able to deny knowledge of it. Cryptosporidium is so harmful that, as result of a recent outbreak in America, 30people died and over 100,000people were infected. Therefore, the effects can be more serious than a mild stomach complaint. This bug, if it takes effect, particularly in the elderly and the infirm, can lead to death.
The Minister found himself in a very difficult dilemma, and I can fully understand why he took the decision that he did. Mr ONeill makes the point that if he had held on a few months, the force majeure regulations would have been invoked allowing the sheep to continue to graze. That is true, but that would have only been for one more year. We would still have been in the same position the following year and would have had to ban sheep from grazing. If the Minister had knowingly sat on this information for four or five months to allow the grazing to continue, and someone had become seriously ill or even died as a result, Mr ONeill would have been the first to hang the Minister out to dry. We have to look at this in a balanced way.
I accept that farmers need to have compensation for this. One of the important points that emerged from a meeting with the Minister is that no matter how high a priority the new treatment plant is given, the very earliest date on which it can physically be opened is March 2004, so farmers are going to be denied the right to graze for another three seasons. That is going to cause enormous hardship. There must be some compromise that can be reached which will at least enable the farmers to claim their subsidies through their Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) forms or provide some form of alternative compensation that will give them restitution for a situation for which they are not to blame.
During our meeting last week we suggested various forms of words that could be used to enable the payments to be made. Something has to be done soon. As Mr ONeill has said, the farmers are not only losing their grazing rights; they are also losing a tradition, and they are going to be put to enormous expense to restore that grazing tradition to the Mournes.
This is not a situation in which the money is not available. The money is there; the budget already provides for subsidy payments for the sheep farmers. Some way has to be found of coming up with a form of words which will allow that money to be transferred to another budget within the Department of Agriculture for payment to farmers. If we do not do that, we will face a tragedy in the Mournes.
I do not believe it useful this afternoon to try to apportion blame. The fundamental reason for the problem is that a deadly bug was found in our water supply, necessitating action and the sooner we find some way of getting money into the hands of farmers, the better. There is no doubt that if we do not find some way of compensating farmers, individual farmers in the Mournes will go to the wall because of this. That is how serious the situation is. The best solution is some form of subsidy adequate to enable the farmers to tick over until grazing is restored in 2004.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is a pity that the proposer should have trivialised the motion so much. The Department for Regional Development is endangering the hill-side farmers of the Silent Valley and the Mourne Mountains, and those near to Belfast. The timescale for putting in place the safe scheme needed for the Silent Valley reservoir is totally inadequate. If the current situation continues for another three years it will put at risk the health of the people in Belfast and present a considerable burden to the hill farmers in the area.
Gregory Campbell must move immediately and allocate farmers priority funding so that work on the filtering scheme can be brought forward. In view of present financial pressures, it is not enough to ask farmers to keep sheep off the grazing land. Farmers must be compensated for the alternative feed. The onus rests entirely on the Department for Regional Development and the Minister, Gregory Campbell, to end the risk to the people of Belfast and to alleviate the burden shouldered by farmers.
What level of communication has been maintained between the Minister for Regional Development, who imposed the ban, the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for the farming industry, and the Minister of Health and Social Services, who is responsible for public safety? This is a key question. Or as many people suspect, is this an example of DUP sectarian antics putting people’s health and farmers’ livelihoods at risk? It is time to stop playing party politics with people’s lives.
The Agriculture Committee has also heard that there has been little discussion or negotiation between officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in the North and their counterparts in the South. In Donegal, where there are similar problems, the Southern Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development has already said it will compensate the farmers for the duration of the problem. I have repeatedly called for a closer look to be taken at the ban affecting farmers in the SilentValley, and for the scientific facts to be established on whether the cryptosporidium bug is linked to sheep specifically or to all grazing in general. Is the ban more appropriate on sheep grazing or is there flexibility to allow limited use of cattle for grazing in the SilentValley to safeguard future area aid payments? The loss of income to farmers of area aid payments could be substantial because of a loss in acreage of the land available for grazing.
It would also seem to be short-sighted of the Department to allow the area to become overgrown with a subsequent deterioration in the physical beauty of an area which has been sustained by sheep grazing. The Environmental Heritage Service is also in the process of designating the area as an area of special scientific interest. Indeed, farmers are suspicious of the real agenda of those placing a lengthy ban on grazing in the area, given the future consequences for local farmers.
I accompanied a Sinn Féin delegation from south Down to meet Bríd Rodgers, and we put a strong case to her for the need to compensate farmers in the Silent Valley who are suffering directly from the ban on grazing. Since May farmers have been contacting Sinn Féin on a regular basis to express their anger at the lack of compensation. One hundred and fourteen farmers have been directly affected by the ban, and it is estimated that the farming community in the area will lose some £1million this year alone. While the Minister acknowledges that the Silent Valley farmers have been treated unfairly, she has also said that her hands are tied by Europe and by the Executive. It is now time for the Minister to act. BrídRodgers should go to the EU and the Executive and make a case for compensating the SilentValley farmers. The lack of action by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Minister is threatening the continuing viability of sheep farming in the Mournes. No plan seems to be in place, and there is no will for decisive action. There is no guarantee of compensation and no end in sight for the grazing ban for the next three to fouryears. Farmers are asking: what is the alternative; how will we graze our sheep? Farmers are facing an increase in the price of land for grazing and no great profit in sheep because of poor prices at the farm gate. The farmers and the community are not getting the support they need from the Minister.
As MrONeill stated, an important aspect of this ban is that offspring of the sheep are losing the right to the grazing ground where they were reared. In other words, flocks of sheep are separated from their grazing ground year after year, and the offspring are being deprived of the plot of ground that belonged to them. Because of the ban, the offspring are deprived of that, and that causes a major problem for the farmers. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr P J Bradley: I support the motion in the name of my Colleague Mr ONeill. He and the other Members have covered most of the problems that farmers are experiencing, through no fault of their own, at the Silent Valley.
When the closure came about, both the farmers concerned and representatives from all political parties gave ample warnings on present and future problems. The difficult days ahead were spoken about last summer and in September. In just eight or 10 weeks the sheep and newborn lambs are due to return again to the Silent Valley slopes. The new lambs bring some continuity to the mountain’s grazing cycle. They familiarise themselves with the pastures grazed by earlier generations of the flock. If that cycle is allowed to be interrupted, it will present a problem that will never be resolved. To return sheep to former grazing pastures after a break of three or four years is not achievable and would only create bedlam as far as shepherding was concerned.
Last week I asked the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to put in place, through the Executive’s programme funds, a support mechanism to alleviate the short- and long-term problems imposed upon Mourne sheep farmers as a result of the Silent Valley grazing ban. We have heard different people blaming others, but the ban came about as a result of a demand from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That was done for health reasons, and nobody can challenge that. The Minister for Regional Development, being the landlord, had to implement it. Subsequently, everybody came knocking on Bríd Rodgers’s door as Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. Many other doors could have been knocked on. The Executive’s programme funds might have been the appropriate place to look for funding.
In their answers, the Ministers stated that they understood that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development had met with a number of deputations on the issue and had obtained additional information for the affected farmers. The Minister stated that she is considering the position in the light of those contacts, with a view to reaching a decision on the way forward and
"including the appropriateness of offering assistance."
Regardless of which Department foots the bill, this is something that those of us who campaign on the farmers’ behalf are waiting to hear about.
Our anxiety is minor compared to the concerns of farmers who await the lifeline that could save their flocks, which for many would protect a major percentage of their income. I missed the earlier part of the debate, but I would have liked all Ministers to be available to respond. I know there is a ruling on that, but with so many different Departments having responsibility it would only have been right for each Minister to be able to be here. In the future we will have to look at similar situations for which three Departments must carry the can.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I congratulate Mr ONeill for putting the motion on the Order Paper. At that point my congratulations run out, when I consider his contribution to the debate. That was unfortunate, given the excellent speeches made by Mr Bradley and Mr Wells, who between them brought an element of reason and sanity to a difficult issue — one that concerns farmers, the community and the livelihoods of many individuals in the Mournes area.
Mr ONeill did nothing to convince my party to support the motion, which is unfortunate. His speech tended to borrow from that little verse in the Bible
"All we like sheep have gone astray".
He seemed to stray everywhere with his statements. He strayed with the sheep on their traditional route, and he strayed with the sheep off their traditional route. That is unfortunate because he failed to make a number of key points and address a number of key issues.
He came to the Assembly armed with an allegation — an allegation made previously — that the Minister for Regional Development had misled the House. He had to temper that allegation with an admission during the course of this debate that the Minister for Regional Development had not misled the House. The only thing missing from his speech was an apology to the Minister. He should have retracted his allegation and accepted the ruling by the Speaker a little more graciously than he did.
The spurious point of order at the start of the debate and the ruling by the Speaker betrayed the fact that, if Mr ONeill himself does not know who is responsible — and if the Speaker cannot make a ruling on who is responsible — it ill behoves him to come to this House to try to pour blame on the Minister for Regional Development on a matter that Mr ONeill cannot even say that the Minister is fully responsible for. I hope that after the contribution by the Minister — who has had the decency to be here today — Mr ONeill will be prepared to thank him for his contribution and comments, which I hope will be constructive.
This motion derives from a faux pas — an attempt by Mr ONeill to settle some old scores with the Department for Regional Development. That Department took a quick and necessary decision to protect human and public health. Those are not my words. They are the words of Mr P J Bradley in this debate, and he is absolutely right. The decision was taken on advice received from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The Minister, and his predecessor, could do nothing else in that regard.
Unfortunately, through this motion, and during the course of this saga, the SDLP has attempted to ignore the public health issues by claiming that consultation between the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development was not as extensive as it might have been. The facts on consultation are very clear. The permanent secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has agreed in writing — in a letter to myself that has been published — that there was consultation. We might not like the decision or the outcome, but the reality is that there was consultation. The SDLP once bitten was not twice shy when it should have been. It then attempted to squeeze compensation from the Minister for Regional Development, who clearly does not bear sole responsibility for the issue of compensation. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development should recognise that she should try to find a mechanism in her own Department to help her pick up the tab on this particular issue — and it will be an expensive issue.
We could continue in this way, playing silly games. My party could blame the SDLP Minister, as, unfortunately, the SDLP, through Mr ONeill in this debate, has tried quite deliberately to blame a DUP Minister. That would be unfortunate, not because of the cheap political point scoring, but for the farmers in the Mournes trying to graze their sheep and maintain a livelihood for themselves and their families. I do not, and will not, go down that road. It is important for people to keep their heads in relation to this issue. They must realise that they cannot come into the Chamber, blame the Minister and think that resolves the issue. They have to go one step further and try to find a process or mechanism to resolve the problem and get agriculture in that part of the Member’s constituency out of the doldrums it is in.
We have had a number of suggestions in the House today. Mr Wells made an eminently sensible suggestion about the application forms for farming grants. The integrated administration control system (IACS) forms could be brought forward and additions made to them. That is a reasonable measure. The Agriculture Committee, which I sit on, has made that suggestion to the Department.
Mr M Murphy, with his Victor Meldrew impersonation, made the suggestion, which was not that bright, that we should look to Donegal for the answer. Frankly, "I don’t believe it." I do not believe that that is where the answer lies.
Mr Bradley actually came up with quite a good idea; that the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development should ask for the Executive’s programme funds to be used. I would go one step further and suggest that there should be a joint approach by the Minister for Regional Development and the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for Executive programme funding on this issue, because that is where the issue rests.
The Minister, or Ministers, responsible have to find a mechanism with which to trigger compensation. I trust that officials — certainly those in the Department for Regional Development — will soon find a legal method that will go some way towards allowing them to trigger that mechanism for compensation. Ultimately, when we get away from all the politics involved, that is really the solution — to achieve compensation.
There is another issue for the House to consider. With all the shouting, berating and hectoring of Ministers for their different political allegiances, it is important that, when we come to consider the Budget in a few weeks’ time, the Minister for Regional Development is allocated the resources necessary to upgrade the water treatment works. I hope the SDLP and all parties argue equally strongly for that. That will ensure that any issue to do with sheep grazing on the Mournes can be resolved more speedily.
I hope that the public health issues, which have brought this matter on to the agenda, will also be resolved.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank Mr ONeill for the opportunity to participate in the debate.
First, I recognise the importance of the issue for the farming community in south Down. However, it is one that has even greater importance for the public health of the wider community. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to place the issues in their proper and wider context.
Information about cryptosporidium and its effects are in the public domain. I made Members aware of that in my statement of 11 September 2000 on the outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in the Lisburn and south-west Belfast areas. However, given the importance of the subject, I would like to reiterate briefly the nature of cryptosporidium, the cryptosporidium risk assessment at Silent Valley, the reason for the exclusion of sheep from catchment lands, and how I see the compensation issue.
Crytposporidium is a parasitic organism, which can be water-borne, and which is resistant to normal disinfection processes. It can cause acute diarrhoeal illness, lasting two to three weeks. For those whose immune systems are weakened or compromised, it can be much more serious. Some Members have spoken about how serious it can be. In some instances, it can be fatal, as Mr Wells indicated. The organism can be removed by treatment incorporating fine infiltration, but once detected in the water distribution system, it can only be destroyed by boiling the water. There is a proven risk of cryptosporidium contamination of the public water supply from livestock grazing in reservoir catchment areas.
I will now move on to the risk assessment at the Silent Valley. Following outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis in Great Britain, the Government appointed an expert group, under the chairmanship of Prof Ian Bouchier, to advise on measures to protect the public against cryptosporidium in drinking water. The group reported in 1998 and made over 50 recommendations, all of which were adopted by Water Service. One of the recommendations was that water utilities should carry out risk assessments on all their water catchment areas. Early in 1999, the Water Service assessed the risk of cryptosporidium contamination at all 59 of its sources. The assessment used was based on models used in England, Wales and Scotland, and developed in consultation with the Northern Ireland Drinking Water Inspector. The assessment showed that the Silent Valley was particularly at risk due to the lack of a satisfactory level of treatment.
The Silent Valley’s water supply serves a substantial part of County Down and south and east Belfast, amounting to approximately 250,000 people in total. Water treatment at the Silent Valley is confined to coarse filtration, pH adjustment and disinfecting. These are not effective in the removal or destruction of cryptosporidium oocysts. The catchment lands at the Silent Valley comprise 9,000 acres owned by the Department for Regional Development in the upper reaches of the Mourne Mountains. Against this background, sheep were excluded on a temporary basis from March of last year. A further review of the management of the Silent Valley catchment area confirmed the need to continue to exclude sheep. I announced that on 6 September.
The ban has the support of the Chief Medical Officer and the Northern Ireland Drinking Water Inspector. I will review the position when the two new water treatment works for the Silent Valley and other reservoirs are provided. The new works, which will provide a barrier to prevent cryptosporidium from entering the distribution system, are programmed for completion in 2004 at a combined cost of £48m. The Mourne conduit, which carries water from the Silent Valley to Belfast, is currently being replaced at a cost of £32m.
There is a time lag between the approval of the replacement of the Mourne conduit and its completion. It is not physically possible for the works to be completed and operational before 2004. If it were possible, I would ensure that it was done. It is physically impossible. In addition, my Department has spent £250,000 on repairs to the Mourne wall to ensure that sheep cannot gain access to the catchment area. Contractors employed by the Mourne Heritage Trust carried out the work. Those significant investments demonstrate my Department’s commitment to ensuring that customers receive drinking water of the highest quality.
I regret that I had to take the decision to exclude sheep from the catchment lands, but in the interests of public health it was, and is, unavoidable. To repeat the comments that I made in a previous debate, what if there had been a risk to the drinking water supply of a quarter of a million of people and I had done nothing, or had delayed by a month, a week, or a day? Public representatives inside and outside this House would demand to know why did I not act to put the health of a quarter of a million people above every other consideration relating to the public drinking water supply. I repeat that I regret that I had to take the decision to exclude the sheep, but in the interests of public health, it was, and is, unavoidable. Protecting the public water supply must be my paramount consideration.
I met some of the farmers just over a week ago and heard their concerns at first hand, a fact mentioned by Mr Wells and Mr ONeill. I appreciate the difficulties that the ban has caused for local farmers, and I sympathise with their position. I am minded to give whatever assistance my Department can. However, I cannot go outside the legal constraints on my Department’s actions. By tradition, the right to use grazing land in Silent Valley has been renewed annually. The contract confers access to the facility of grazing, not possession of the grazing land itself. The legal advice is that as the practice of making grazing land available was on an annual basis, it can be discontinued.
I recognise the local farmers’ concerns, but, regrettably, it will not be possible for my Department to pay compensation. I know that that will be a disappointment to the farmers, but I must have regard to the legal position. I will, however, give careful consideration to any of the suggestions made today that I can discuss with my Colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. I am also willing to consider any scientific evidence that demonstrates conclusively that the presence of sheep would not present any risk to the public water supply. However, current advice from leading experts such as Prof Bouchier’s committee on cryptosporidium is that livestock grazing on catchment land is a risk to public health.
My officials have maintained close contact with officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to establish what measures could be taken to assist the farmers. Discussions are continuing on whether any of the suggestions — written and verbal — that have been made to my Department could provide a way forward.

Mr Jim Wells: During last week’s meeting between the Minister, his officials and a delegation of sheep farmers, several suggestions were put to him about a form of words that could crack the problem. Is the Minister’s Department considering those suggestions to see whether any of them offer a solution?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I can confirm, as I had just said before Mr Well’s intervention, that we are considering several representations, including some of those that were made by the delegation that the Member led to see me last week. We are also examining other options. I am conscious of what can happen as a result of comments made in the House and how misleading impressions can be created, but I should say that none of the suggestions made so far provides an automatic response to the difficulties that we face. They all present difficulties, and none of them provides the categorical and definitive response that the farmers would like.
I have spoken to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development today, and I want to clarify a point that Mr ONeill raised at the outset. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has asked that I make it clear that she wanted to respond to the motion jointly with me but was prevented from doing so by the Assembly’s procedures. She asked me to convey her concern about the plight of the farmers affected by the ban. She has also had meetings with deputations from different parties about the situation and has obtained additional information directly from the farmers themselves. Both of us assure the Assembly that we are keen to work together, through and with our Departments, to examine if there is any practical way of reducing the impact on the local farmers. To progress the issue we have agreed to meet soon, and a mutually convenient time will be arranged by our private offices.
The Silent Valley catchment lands can not be made available for grazing because of the proven risk to public health. That action has the support of the medical authorities and the Drinking Water Inspector. As I said earlier, no one in the House would expect me to do otherwise. My first responsibility is the protection of the public water supply to the 250,000 customers who use the water from the Silent Valley. That does not mean that I am unsympathetic to the plight of farmers. I have demonstrated that I am sympathetic, and I am working with my Colleague in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to try to arrive at a conclusion to their plight. However, it would be irresponsible to allow grazing until the new treatment works are built. They will provide an effective barrier to cryptosporidium entering the water distribution system.
I am sympathetic to the difficulties of the local farmers, but, on legal advice, I cannot justify payment of compensation. However, officials from the Department for Regional Development and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will continue to explore what other steps can be taken to assist those farmers affected. I will be meeting with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development soon to discuss those issues.
I wish to refute — and I hope that I have done so in my remarks — any suggestions of partisanship or sectarianism in the manner in which my Department and I have dealt with this issue. Some of the comments by a few Members mean that I am determined to try to reach a resolution of the problem despite their comments rather than because of them, and I will endeavour to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate. AlanMcFarland emphasised the threat of cryptosporidium and stated that the outbreak in April and May2000, contrary to the other outbreak, was traced to an animal source. There are two traceable sources for the bug. One is human, and the other can be animal or human. This one was indeterminate.
I am basing that on the report of the investigation that was carried out by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety into the outbreak during April and May2000. I pressed for the publication of that report, and the Health Minister promised that it would be published in the middle of August. However, it was almost December before we received it. I was greatly concerned that the publication of the report took so long, but the Health Minister did facilitate a meeting with myself and the medical team that was preparing the report, and I went through it in some depth with them. There is no evidence to suggest that the outbreak of cryptosporidium in April and May2000 originated from the Silent Valley sheep.
People try to construct things about the issue, and that is why I feel aggrieved. Not surprisingly, I feel angry when I hear from my constituents that things that could have been done to help them were not done due to various circumstances. It makes it even more pointed when the source of the infection did not come from where it was supposed to have come from. I would like to divest people of the argument about health slightly in order to take a look at the point about the source of infection. Of course, everyone’s first concern is for the public health of our community. However, some sort of understanding should be expressed when it is shown that a particular source is not the cause of infection. That evidence is available in this case.
JimWells made several comments and, of course he used the occasion to attack me for attacking the Minister. It is a good old ruse, and I can well understand why he did not want to indulge in apportioning blame because he wants to protect his Colleague and Friend. That is fine. We all understand that, and we will not get excited about it. However, he quoted a statistic about the levels of infection and the number of oocysts per quantity. The public health report stated
"Although there was a period of turbidity between 26th and 28th of April and cryptosporidium was detected in the water supply between 26th April and 1st May, the maximum level detected of 0.1 oocysts per 10L was below the recommended level for action of 1.0 oocysts per 10L".
In other words, the number was considerably below the action level, yet action was taken. That is a correction to a point that he made.

Mr Jim Wells: If I believed that that was true for one minute, I can assure the hon Member that I would be 100% behind him. However, we met the deputy chief executive of the Water Service last week and we put that point to him. He assured us that the level had been breached and when that happened the Department was criminally liable. I will be going back to check that. However, I was given an assurance that at least one oocyst per ten litres had been detected in the water supply.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I quoted from page 18, section 4.9.3 of the public health report. That will enable the Member to research it more fully.
MickMurphy drew attention to the fact that there were three Ministers involved. I did not fully understand his point. However, when I dealt with the three Ministers in person I found that they co-operated fully, and I do not want to minimise that in any way. On a person to person basis, that co-operation was there. However, I am concerned that Ministers may defend their Departments to the extent of not listening to what goes on there.
At the outset, I said that I was quite upset to hear a report on the radio this morning about the suggestion that sheep had been allowed into the area. It struck me as particularly interesting that someone should focus on this story after all this time. I detected that they wanted to divert attention away from the argument. On several occasions I have detected as much when I tried to investigate parts of the issue. It makes one feel that there is something of a plot afoot to disturb the public interest and to deflect public interest away from the issue. I may just be feeling a bit sore and persecuted but I have had that suspicion on several occasions. I wonder if it has anything to do with certain officials in a certain Department being conscious of the fact that they should have carried out tests on the safety, efficiency and protection of the water supply.
It is in the public interest for Members to bear this in mind. We are all aware of the extent to which we were dominated, in the past, by the Civil Service — there was no proper accountability. I definitely get the impression that this case was treated in such a way. Public health was constantly used to divert my attention away from protecting farmers. They were made the scapegoats at all times, even though the evidence indicates that the opposite is the case. This is what emerged from my dealings with the three Ministers.
MrPaisleyJnr claimed that I failed to make a number of key points. I waited patiently for these points to be made, but I did not hear them. He was inclined to try to direct some form of calumny at me and to trivialise my comments, without realising that I am trying to reflect the very serious and sincere anger of the people I represent. I may perhaps be forgiven for my actions. I hope that I am forgiven, because I have seen the effects of this situation, and I get cross and upset when I can see ways around bureaucratic decisions that are not being taken.
I welcome the Minister’s expressed willingness to try to solve the problem. I still maintain that his Department has a key role to play in this matter, and I hope that that will encourage him and his officials to do everything possible, in conjunction with his Colleagues. Interestingly, this debate might just result in greater co-operation between our ministerial Colleagues in the Chamber — there have been some examples of this today, and I am glad to see that happening.
Finally, I appeal to the Minister to consider seriously my request that the pasturage link be maintained. Experts say that the risk of a cryptosporidium outbreak is least hazardous in August, September and October, and there is no evidence that anything happens at those times. Even if the rest of my argument falls on deaf ears, I urge the Minister to consider allowing those months to be used to establish and maintain that pasturage link, which would allow the tradition to continue after the Department carries out the intended work.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on those Ministers responsible to make compensation available for farmers who are suffering financially as a result of the Silent Valley sheep ban in the Mournes.

Schools Performance Information

Mr Sammy Wilson: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Education to publish information which enables the performance of schools in Northern Ireland to be adequately measured and compared.
I will outline why I felt this issue should be debated by the Assembly.
First, we have a decision that has caused widespread concern, and I am going to mention some of the people who have expressed concern in a moment. Secondly, we have an issue that once again illustrates the cavalier manner with which the Minister of Education handles his portfolio. It does no credit to the Assembly, to its Committees, or to the general education debate for such an important issue, which is central to the whole delivery of education in Northern Ireland, to have been delivered in this particular way.
This is an important issue. The Department of Education receives the second-highest amount of money from the Budget for Northern Ireland, and a high proportion of that goes directly to schools. Therefore, it is important to have some measure on how effectively that money is being spent. One way of doing that is to measure the output of schools. The Minister, in his wisdom, has decided to do away with the only measure of performance that is made available to the public so that they can judge whether or not schools are delivering. It is a decision that has drawn criticism from academics, including Prof Tony Gallagher; from industrialists, including the Institute of Directors; and from parents and some school principals. It is a decision that ironically — or perhaps not ironically, but predictably — has been welcomed by teachers’ unions. Some may well say that the Minister, having failed to make friends anywhere else in education, has decided to zone in on the teachers’ unions: better some friends than no friends. But if he is doing that at the expense of the accountability of the education budget and what goes on in schools, then the Assembly ought to be concerned.
The second reason for my bringing the matter to the Assembly is that the Minister has handled this issue in an unacceptable manner. This is a major policy change, and it makes Northern Ireland different from all other parts of the United Kingdom, but, as we found out yesterday, the matter was not brought before the Executive. Other Executive Members were not consulted about it. So much for what we have been told about the Executive’s ability to rein in rogue Ministers. The decision is contrary to the views expressed by the Education Committee. I know that some people will find it rather odd that another member of the Education Committee has put down an amendment welcoming the decision. But let me remind the Assembly what the Education Committee said to the Minister on this issue:
"The Committee believes that it is important that performance information on schools is made widely available to assist openness, transparency and…"
— this is important —
"for the benefit of making comparisons."
That was endorsed unanimously by the Education Committee, including the member who is going to move an amendment to the motion in a moment or two.
The Committee went on:
"The Committee accepts that the provision of comparative information can assist schools to monitor and evaluate their performance and set targets to improve."
It concluded that:
"The Department should regularly publish comparative information..."
The first preference was that the comparison should be based on value-added information. But in the interim, until the Department decided what information to include, the Committee said that the Department should continue to publish the information as at present, but make it a bit more meaningful by benchmarking. In other words, rather than having one league table in which all schools were treated the same, divide it into divisions, similar to the football league, which would make it a bit fairer. Premier league schools should not be compared with fourth division schools. That may be an inadequate analogy, but it nevertheless demonstrates that schools divide into different sections, either because of their intake, their area, or the nature of the youngsters who go there.
The Minister ignored the views of the Committee. He ignored the views of many professionals, and he ignored the Executive. That is why it is important for the Assembly to debate this issue. The Minister now seems to be making decisions on the basis of some kind of inadequate and partial referendum. He sought to justify his decision by stating that 75% of the responses he received were in support of doing away with tables published by the Department. What he failed to say was that of the three options, two involved the publication of the kind of information that is currently available. One option was for it to be produced by boards, the other for it to be published by the Department. The division between those preferring that it be done purely by schools and those wanting some other central body to do it was almost fifty-fifty.
It was never indicated that the decision would be made on a headcount. Is the Minister going to handle these important issues simply by getting the responses and totalling them all up? Regardless of the nature, quality, standing and source of the responses, will he take 51% and say that if those people are in favour, then that is the route to take? For a party that has railed against majority rule, that is a very odd way to behave.
Is that how he is going to deal with the review of post-primary education? If it is, the message is that every Tom, Dick and Harry across the country should write in. That is how the Minister is going to decide — by some form of postal referendum. In light of Sinn Féin’s reputation on postal votes, one has to query the wisdom of allowing things to be decided in that way. That is why this issue needed to be debated. It is significant that the majority of responses from parents said that they wished to have information reported by either the Department or the boards. Even though there has been a concerted campaign by teaching unions, 44% of teachers said that they did not mind such information being published by either the Department or the boards. There is no great resistance to performance information, presented in a comparative way, being published, however much the Minister likes to suggest that his decision was backed up by popular demand.
Let us look at some of the arguments. First of all, the Department’s own consultation document recognises the value of these tables. Here are some examples:
"The Tables encourage competition among schools, and the effect of competition is often to drive up standards. Many schools have worked hard in recent years to develop strategies that will improve their ‘ranking’ in the Tables … the Tables can provide a basis for discussion about comparative performance, standards and quality of teaching between staff and Governors."
The document points out that the information is popular. Over the past seven years, more than 250,000 copies of the school league tables have been distributed. No complaint has ever been received from a parent about receiving unwanted material. I could go on. The Department’s document indicates that there is value in the tables. The Minister, under section 4.2 of the Programme for Government, indicates that one of the prime reasons for demanding more money for education is to improve the standard of education. We have a situation where we have the Department admitting that a particular way of improving standards in schools is to publish information, the Minister saying he wants to do that, and yet he no longer publishes the figures.
The Department is now setting out targets for GCSE and Key Stage 2 attainment. If the Department is happy to set those targets nationally, why should we not look at the component parts of how those national targets are achieved? If some schools are underachieving, let it be known, so that, as the Committee said, they can be monitored and helped. Despite the compelling evidence from the Department, and the fact that the Department is now saying that targets will be set for GCSE and A level passes, Key Stage 2 attainment and everything else, those tables are not going to be published.
One reason might be that the Minister is seeking to bring Northern Ireland into line with the Irish Republic, which is one of the few countries in the world that has bowed to the pressure of professionals within the education establishment. Not only does it refuse to publish the information, it bans publication by anybody else. What is the result? We hear a lot about the Celtic tiger, and how education has driven that, but the results are far from that.
The third International Maths and Science Survey reported that, when it tested nine year-olds and thirteen year-olds in maths and science, the Republic of Ireland ranked in the lower half of the countries surveyed. Only Cyprus, Iran and Portugal were lower. An international adult literacy survey looked at prose document and numeric literacy. Of the six English-speaking countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the standard in the Irish Republic was the lowest. It was also lowest in computer literacy in OECD English-speaking countries — just below half-way in the ranking of Western Europe. A whole range of statistical information shows that if standards are not measured publicly, it does not matter how much money is spent on education. There will be a lack of value for money.
Many arguments have been put forward against publishing the league tables — some of them fairly spurious. The first is that it affects the morale of teachers. I would have thought that one way of improving teacher morale would be to show that what they were doing was valued and measured, and that when improvements took place there was something to praise them for. The attitude of some of the teachers’ unions contrasts greatly with that of teachers in other countries. The American Federation of Teachers actually called for the publication of standards. It said that it believed that it was important for students to know what they should be able to do at each grade level and to have examinations administered by the state, and that that in turn would create confidence in the schools.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Wilson, I ask you to draw your comments to a close.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I will finish now.
The second argument is that the publication of league tables distorts the activity of schools. I would have thought that the main reason why parents send their youngsters to school was to gain qualifications. Therefore, one needs to measure whether schools have achieved that.
I am sure that Ms Lewsley will deal with the third argument, which is that schools do more than just pump out examination candidates. That is quite true. However, parents, when they are choosing schools, do not look solely at league tables or performance tables. They will go to open nights and listen to what their children and other children say, what people who have gone through the school say, and what they read in the newspapers about a school. All that information is factored in anyway. That does not do away with the need to have some measure of school performance.
Finally, here is a quote from a letter sent to a local newspaper by a parent, referring to how some west Belfast schools had underperformed:
"The public has a right to know if schools have underperformed, and pupils have a right to have it redressed."
The only way one can know if schools have underperformed is if one has comparative information published. The only way one can have it redressed is to have schools monitored. For those schools which are underachieving, that information should be used as a means of devoting help, attention and resources so that children get what parents expect for them when it comes to the school system.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Owing to the substantial number of Members wishing to speak, I am going to have to limit each Member’s time to eight minutes. The Minister will have 15 minutes in which to respond.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "Assembly" and add
"welcomes the decision of the Minister not to continue the current publication of school performance tables and calls on the Minister of Education to ensure that information supplied to parents about schools is wide-ranging and detailed and includes social and economic background data, extra-curricular and non-academic classes offered and other ‘value-added’ information."
It is schools that should deliver performance tables, not the Department. As Mr Wilson said, we are not asking for performance measures to be taken away, but we are asking that the schools deliver them and not the Department.
As many of us know, last October the Department initiated a consultation on the future of school performance tables and invited responses from schools, parents and other interested groups on the issue. At that time, I was concerned that the consultation period was too short. Responses had to be returned to the Department by 8 December. I was also concerned that the options were too limited. Mr Wilson has already mentioned the three options. In response to that consultation, many people who responded at that time, including my own party, chose option two. The proviso was that it should be implemented with appropriate monitoring by the Department, particularly given the additional resources saved through ceasing to publish the tables. Under option two we believed that schools would be required to provide parents with a copy of their prospectus, with the details of their examination performance set in the context of other information about that school.
I believe that it is in the interests of equality of opportunity and social inclusion for all children that adequate information on schools is presented to parents to ensure informed choice. Education is a vital element in society, coming close in importance to food and shelter. Not only that, it is a human right. To provide parents with full and accurate information on schools, we need to recognise the need for a more holistic approach to the achievement of schools. I believe that there should be a duty on schools to present examination data, with vocational qualifications alongside academic qualifications. It is important that information on the achievements and extra-curricular and non-academic activities of the schools, including what I would term the value added by the socioeconomic background of the students and areas, be given.
I do not accept that it is impossible to devise a system for presenting the information on the value added by a school, given its particular circumstances and approach. All too often, emphasis is placed on the school’s academic performance alone, and this can increase the burden on the school to meet targets and to satisfy league tables, with the result that it becomes league-driven and geared too much towards academia. We have to move away from perpetual testing to perpetual teaching. This type of limited information can also be misleading for parents when choosing a suitable school for their child’s needs. What we should have, as I have said before, is equality of opportunity. We must tackle the issues of underachievement, rural schools, nursery education and, in particular, special needs education. We must ensure that we target social need and take into account a child’s abilities and reflect a child’s needs and parental choice.
We need to develop a second level education that gives equal weight to a vocational stream operating alongside an academic stream to develop a real and meaningful curriculum that meets the needs of pupils and society. In my opinion, although we have a high level of excellence, we also have a high level of underachievement that needs to be tackled.
As a parent of a child who got her results on Saturday morning, I can assure Members that only about 30% of parents will be worried about league tables. The others, of whom I am one, are only worried at this stage about what school their children will actually get into. For me the issue is not about league tables. It is about finding a school that can give my child encouragement and the equality of opportunity to fulfil her potential, whether by a vocational or an academic route. Given the right environment, I believe that she will have the chance to regain some of the self-esteem and motivation that she lost on Saturday at the tender age of 10. I also believe that our aim should be to encourage all our children to develop their full potential in relation to academic, sporting, vocational, musical, artistic or other abilities, and to cope with whatever limitations or difficulties they may have or encounter. I ask the Assembly to support this amendment.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this important debate. I am speaking as the Ulster Unionist Party’s spokesperson on education, but I will also be saying a little in my role as the Chairman of the Education Committee.
The whole issue of school performance tables has, from time to time, been shrouded in controversy. It is clear that there are conflicting views in the education sector as to their value. I am unable to give my support to the amendment tabled by the Member for Lagan Valley, MrsLewsley. In the submissions that were made to the Minister — and particularly those of the Ulster Unionist Party and the Education Committee — and the Minister’s subsequent decision, there are gaps that I, as spokesperson on education and Chairperson of the Education Committee, am concerned about. The gaps relate, for the large part, to the main text outlined in Ms Lewsley’s amendment. I am unwilling to commit myself to that amendment, in the light of the absence of a ministerial commitment to take action and support the proposals contained in the second part of the amendment.
The Ulster Unionist Party expressed its view to the Minister, as part of the consultation process, that there is a clear need for this type of information to be made available to those involved in education, including pupils, parents, teachers, library boards and the Department of Education. This would provide these groups with access to data, which would enable them to make better-informed decisions, albeit from a statistical perspective. School performance tables did not take account of everything that schools provide. For that reason, we were convinced that value-added information should be made available alongside the pure statistical data. Every effort should, therefore, be made to chart a school’s complete performance on both an academic and a personal level.
The Ulster Unionist Party, in its submission on school performance tables to the Minister, also emphasised the need for his Department to consider the assistance and input of the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA), which has undertaken a wide range of useful work in this area. At the time of the ministerial announcement, that element was absent. I will be interested to hear his views on this value-added information and on the role that the CCEA might play in that respect.
The Education Committee’s response was that it is very important that performance information on schools be made widely available and readily accessible to all stakeholders to promote openness and transparency and to enable comparisons to be made. That information must be accurate, consistent and easy to understand. In consideration of these issues, the Committee recognised that one of the benefits of the publication of school performance tables was the provision of accurate and consistent information that enables comparisons to be made. This comparative information could assist schools to monitor and evaluate their performances and to set their targets for improvement. However, the Education Committee also recognised that the old format of performance tables provided information on a limited range of examination results. It was felt that the tables might reinforce the view that academic attainment alone is of value and that the comparison of schools on the basis of examination results is misleading in the absence of a reliable method of assessing and reporting value-added information.
For these reasons, I believe, the Education Committee made two recommendations regarding the review of the school performance tables. The first recommendation was that each school be provided with a simple standardised package of information on how to enhance the range of non-examinable subject options and other aspects of school life which are on offer, with a view to their publication in its prospectus. In essence, that is now being implemented. This is my understanding of the response, but the Minister will want to confirm that.
The second recommendation of the Education Committee was that the Department should regularly publish meaningful and comparative information based on value-added performance indicators. This information would measure the progress achieved by students during a phase of education relative to their different starting points or the value-added education that a school offers. This would allow a more accurate assessment and comparison of schools. While the Committee is aware that as yet there is no easily understandable way in which to measure this, the Department of Education and the Minister should pursue this as a matter of urgency. A central provision of information would emphasise and heighten awareness of the importance of raising and maintaining standards. However, the information provided must be transparent, simple to understand and interpret and allow a comparison of like with like. That is why I am happy to give my support to the proposal outlined by Mr S Wilson. While I have great sympathy with and can identify very much with much of the text of the amendment proposed by MsLewsley, I am unable to give my full support to that this afternoon.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I congratulate my Colleague MrSWilson for getting this motion on the Order Paper, and indeed I support it. I want to contribute to the debate by reading an extract from an editorial in the ‘News Letter’ on Monday, January15 — I think that was the day after the Minister took the decision to scrap the existing league tables. It said
"Surely the answer is to provide more information, not less. The tables have fulfilled an important function by putting previously unreleased information into the public domain, in an easily accessible way."
That "easily accessible" information, which was heretofore not available, has now been removed. That is censorship. The Minister has made a quite deliberate attempt to deny parents access to information.
No one ever argued that this information was the be-all and the end-all; neither was it ever argued that this was the basis upon which to make a decision about a child’s future education — but was it? It was information to guide a parent and, indeed, to guide schools on the decisions that they had to make. It is unfortunate that less information is now available to parents when they come to make a crucial choice about the future of their child’s education. That was the most regrettable thing about the Minister’s decision, and it is that that has prompted this debate — we want to get a system of comparison in place. As the motion quite rightly states, information is published that allows for schools to be compared and allows us to make judgements against performance targets. In this day and age we are told to encourage the setting of targets and we are urged to reach and achieve them, so it seems very strange that the Minister of Education wants to deny us information which will let us know if schools are achieving the targets that have been set.
In the ‘News Letter’ on January 15, the Minister outlined his reason — or his excuse — for deciding to scrap the publication of these important tables. He said
"When I asked people what they would like me to do to improve the education system, one answer kept coming back. ‘Do something about the league tables’.
This was second only to ‘Do something about the 11-plus’."
That prompts the question: does the Minister do everything he is asked? Does he respond so favourably to every request that is made to him? Would he respond so favourably to similar requests to increase teachers’ pay? A quare lot of people across Northern Ireland clearly think that he has not responded to that one. Teachers’ pay has not been increased in the way in which they would like it to have been increased. No, the fact of the matter is that the Minister has fallen foul of the politically correct lobby on this issue. Instead of permitting parents to have access to all of the information they require, he has engaged in a form of censorship, and that is wrong.
The motion before the House will allow us to lift that censorship. Given the Minister’s party and his protest in the past about censorship, one would have hoped that he would be able to understand parental concerns about censorship. However, it was a forlorn hope for many in the House and across Northern Ireland that he would be prepared to listen and respond positively to requests by parents and people in the teaching profession who want to see this information’s being published. There is a truism that information is power. When you are denied information, you are denied the power to make appropriate decisions based on all the facts.
When the unfortunately named "school league tables" were first published, they gave parents a valuable measure by which to test schools. They blew apart the myth that grammar schools were miles ahead of other schools, and they put into perspective the criteria that academics placed on the exam achievement status of several schools. Indeed, the ‘News Letter’ editorial that I quoted from earlier made this very point. It said
"In 1993, the ‘News Letter’ highlighted the fact that in some areas, an extraordinarily high percentage of young males were leaving school to go on to Government training programmes, and a follow-up investigation revealed that in many cases, the programmes fulfilled no useful function. The result of this was that the Training and Employment Agency improved their schemes and their monitoring systems to the benefit of young school leavers."
This was achieved because of those school league tables. Under current departmental circumstances that could not be achieved. The Minister has denied people the information they need.
School league tables were not, and were never intended to be, the be-all and end-all or the only measure of school achievement, but they were a useful source of information. The Minister has decided to throw the baby out with the bath water. A small number of teachers must be laughing up their sleeves at the Minister of Education today, because he has been putty in their hands and has done exactly as he was told. "Get rid of the league tables; get rid of the guides; get rid of the measurements that, perhaps, point the finger of blame at some teachers, and tell them that they have to do their jobs in a better way."
The tables also encourage schools to improve their activities and raise their standards to help young people achieve the examination results they are capable of achieving. Instead of destroying an existing process, the Minister ought to have improved on the league system. However, this Minister’s psyche does not allow him to build; it only allows him to destroy. This is a classic example of the destruction of information that should be made available to parents, teachers and the public so that people can make reasoned and rational decisions about the future of their children’s education and about where children should go for their secondary or grammar school education.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I should not really be welcoming the opportunity to have this debate, because it is quite unnecessary. League tables were discussed at length in the Education Committee, and the issue should have been sorted out there. We made decisions, and while some people say that we came to a different decision, I do not think we did. Some of us pointed out the problems with the system. I do not agree with Members who say that we should keep the league tables.
I now speak in support of the amendment. I always worry when something positive such as education is raised in the "No" politics of the DUP. I always worry that it is not for the benefit of everyone concerned. The tables themselves are a blunt instrument for measuring performance, and I am totally opposed to their publication. Making information available is one thing, but publicising it so that the media and everyone else can have a field day supporting a particular agenda is unfair to the parents and, especially, to the teachers, who are trying to educate children in very different conditions. The decision made was probably the right one. Teachers and parents seem to support it, and I am sure that children in schools higher up the tables do. It is all very well if you are at the top of the heap, able to look down on the rest and make assertions about how you are doing, but it is a totally unfair system for measuring children’s, teachers’ or schools’ performance.
I would try to put something in place that is fair to everyone. I would not choose, at any time of the year, to compare schools with each other on an unfair basis. That only serves to show that certain schools, certain teachers and certain children are not performing at all, while others are doing exceedingly well. That has to be wrong, and it was on that basis that we made our decision. Whether decisions were made by individuals at the Committee or otherwise, that is how I made mine.
League tables do not show the full picture. There they bear a likeness to the 11-plus examination. They measure only a few of schools’ many educational outcomes, such as the students with five or more A to C grades. In particular, they do not take into account personal growth, social skills and the creativity of children, or the wide variations in the socio-economic and educational needs of pupils. They do not compare different context and ability ranges — even in the secondary sector — a school’s extra-curricular activities, or its contribution to placing young people in jobs and supporting them in stressful circumstances.
Particular areas suffer social disadvantage. As many areas are deprived, children have to go to their local schools, and often they do not have a choice. League tables do not take into consideration the fact that there may not always be family support or money available to provide the support necessary to enable pupils to achieve the grades and standards that pupils at schools placed higher up the tables can. Social disadvantage, therefore, does come into the equation.
Education should not be a race to the very top, as the press says. Every school has special needs, and there is also the matter of pastoral development. For MrSWilson to say that the Minister ignored our views is wrong. There is to be a review of the situation, which we have talked about, and I am sure that that will be ongoing. We also intend to consult now and in the future on the issue.
Media sensationalism is one of the areas from which the DUP motion is coming. Is SammyWilson trying to highlight the performance of elitist schools against the performance of the many who want to deliver education in an unequal educational environment, rather than for any great educational reasons? The press’s obsession with academic results does not necessarily help us obtain an educational system in which we can educate our young people for a modern world. My difficulty with league tables is that the media control — or try to control — agendas and come out with headlines that try to drive a particular agenda, and that is wrong.
I am all for the sharing of information and for the sharing of a wider range of information. That is what is wrong with the present system. A limited amount of information was available to parents — information which they were able to read in the press the morning after the league tables were published. We need wider information. We need to inform parents so that they can make a choice. I am in favour of sharing information with parents who are interested in all the information. In the past, parents were not always interested in the detail and, in some cases, even in the headlines. Education is about more than parents comparing the top schools with those that their children must attend because there is no choice. There is a disparity in the abilities of children, and many schools need to be upgraded — for which they must wait for many years — before they can be compared with a nearby school. Many such things need to be taken into account.
The Minister has made the right decision. It is popular with teachers and pupils, and they know best. Perhaps, the only people who think it better to keep the tables are those in the schools at the very top — the high-achieving academic schools. It is OK for them; they can turn in a great performance every year. They achieve such a high level of performance, because they get the cream of the crop. That is unfair to everyone else. The Minister’s decision was a good one, and the issue can be considered again in the future. I support the amendment.

Mrs Eileen Bell: It is said that schooldays are the happiest days of one’s life. I never believed that, even in my relatively trouble-free school life. I certainly do not subscribe to it today, given the many assessments and examinations that today’s pupils have to endure in the three stages of their educational life. I welcome the Minister’s statement that school performance tables will not be published again.
The Alliance Party feels that the tables, introduced in 1983, have a narrow focus on examination attainment only. They do not include information for parents and potential pupils about other vital factors — citizenship education, development of interactive living skills or facilities for children with special needs, for example. Full information on the overall situation in a school should be made available, and only the schools can do that. They are best placed to give details of academic achievements, pupil development and the range of projects that aid such development.
Prior knowledge of the total picture would have a helpful effect on how parents view such schools. The annual league tables do not convey that information. They simply show examination performance: they are not called "performance tables" for nothing. Such information places additional pressure on pupils and teachers to achieve the optimum number of passes in each examination. The Alliance Party is concerned by an increasing body of anecdotal evidence that suggests that some schools, in an increasing attempt to secure the best possible profile in the league tables, are suggesting that pupils who are experiencing difficulties and have been judged by their teachers to be underperforming in examinations should move to other schools before entering for examinations. That should not be allowed.
Good performance should not be the priority in education. Education should be centred on meeting the needs of all children, whatever their ability. The current mechanical approach is rarely to the advantage of the children concerned. In its submission, the Alliance Party said
"People assume that what is measured is an indication of what is deemed to be valuable by the system. The league tables, which focus solely on academic attainment in examination, reinforce the idea that academic attainment alone is of any value."
A more diverse range of criteria must be introduced if equity of value and esteem is to be given to all aspects of educational achievement and endeavour. The publication of the academic achievement of schools must also be placed in context. This would be best achieved through the publication of results as one aspect of a school prospectus, which includes the full range of educational and extra-curricular experiences, opportunities and initiatives offered by each school, and which reflects all the facets of a school’s achievements.
The publication of such documents should be compulsory for all schools and could form the basis of the transfer booklet currently distributed to parents. The results of this recent consultation process on league tables showed clearly that parents do not want the tables, whatever Mr S Wilson may have said. They speak of performance alone, and parents do not want that. Parents also wish to see included the ethos of the school establishment, added-value measurements such as the ability range of pupils, a range of criteria wide enough to reflect achievement across the various aspects of educational experience offered throughout the system, and the different emphasis placed by individual schools on meeting the needs of all their pupils.
I hope that the review of the information that a school is required to include in its prospectus will include all types of schools in different areas, and that its findings will go a long way toward assisting schools in drawing up their individual information packages. Obviously, this is where the Department of Education could come in with advice. The Minister of Education has made such a commitment, and a full review has been taking place. I hope that that is done expeditiously. Performance tables have been shown to be problematic in encouraging pupils to have unrealistic ambitions and parents to assume unrealistic ideas of the abilities of their children by sending them to schools with the best record of achievement but where less gifted pupils may feel unable to match up.
In conclusion, I say that we should always have as our priority the establishment of a system that encourages and enables all children to achieve their own highest potential. The Alliance Party believes that the performance tables do not do this, and that the interests of parents, students and schools will be best served by the information’s being made available within individual school publications, where the school provides the information as part of the school prospectus. The motion suggests that the Minister of Education should publish the information for comparison and measurement. That would put us back to square one, where the wrong values of superiority, et cetera, would pertain. Therefore I cannot support it. I support the amendment, as it outlines a good basis for the elements necessary for the future of our children’s education.

Mr Speaker: This is the first occasion that this Assembly will hear from Mr Hamilton when he will be making what can be described as a maiden speech. As Members know, it is the convention in another place that such a speech is made without interruption.

Mr Tom Hamilton: As this is my maiden speech, I promise to keep it short and to the point.
Mr S Wilson referred at the beginning of his speech to the need to evaluate how effectively money is spent on education. I do not believe that anyone in this House would disagree with that. Certainly Mr Wilson and I, who have both served in the teaching profession, would not disagree on that matter. I have no problem with the idea of schools publishing examination results. However, the information currently used and the format in which it is presented do not go far enough, because it in no way gives parents full or precise information as to exactly how a school performs. The tables, as used, were great if you taught in one of those schools that the top 30% of our pupils attend. The tables, as used, suited you as a teacher, because they reflected the high results that those types of pupils produced in examinations.
It is all very well for Mr S Wilson to refer to the damage that he claims is being done to teacher morale by not producing the league tables. I take issue with him on that point. He does not seem to have considered the undervaluation many teachers felt when they took a pupil, possibly with severe learning difficulties — as I did on several occasions — and managed to improve him or her sufficiently to achieve a GCSE grade F. The amount of work and effort that the teacher and the pupil put in — for what was a major achievement by the pupil — was not reflected at all in the published league tables.
Parents do not always just look at a school’s academic performance. They do not always look at how many grade As or Bs were achieved. The reason is that in the real world many parents have children with learning difficulties, and they do not look at the number of grade As and Bs when trying to find a school. They want to know what special classes and teaching methods will be used to help their children. They know that their children will probably never be able to aspire to grade As and Bs so when they look for schools to send their children to the published league tables provide them with no help and no guidance — nothing in that respect.
Ms Lewsley’s amendment has much to recommend it, but for the reasons outlined by my Colleague Mr Kennedy we are unable to support it. I do not have to reiterate those reasons, because Mr Kennedy outlined them adequately. In conclusion, my only regret is that Ms Lewsley did not approach us with the idea of devising a joint amendment, because she would have found much common ground for her proposals with many in the House.

Mr Oliver Gibson: This motion is timely and essential. I am reacting to an outburst made by the Deputy First Minister, Mr Mallon, when he spoke at a formal occasion — the opening of a commercial event in east Belfast. On that occasion, he indicated that the education system was somehow failing the people of Northern Ireland.
My private reaction was, first, that he might be correct. Secondly, I noted that the second-largest budget had been devoted to education — and quite rightly so — because the most prized asset that any community can have is its own educated people. That is the basic building block of society and all human activity. Therefore that is why it was essential that the so-called league tables were published. First, they did raise standards, and that is acknowledged in all the publications. The long tail of underperformance has been virtually eliminated by some of those schools, and children who did not feel that they should strive and struggle to achieve.
There was encouragement; there was praise, and there was success. That removed the greater part of the long tail of underachievement. Therefore raising school standards embodies much more than the statement of facts. It is something that must be supported. Further evidence of this was put to us strongly just before the Minister made his statement. The Confederation of British Industry, the Chamber of Commerce and other industry interests told us "League tables are not complete in themselves." Everyone in this Chamber would agree that league tables never provided an adequate amount of information. I think that we would all be agreed on that.
There is currently a pilot scheme running in England that is devising a method for adding on the value-added element. We are told that that will not be available until the 2003-04 academic year. Rather than stopping the publication of the league tables, we should have kept on with them. We should have used our best endeavours to ensure that value-added measures will be appended to any future tables. When we met the Minister I made it very clear to him that we in Northern Ireland, at the periphery of Europe, cannot, in any way be seen to be an underperforming group of people. In a comparison between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on educational attainments it was said
"Attainments in Northern Ireland are better by most measures. The area with the biggest difference is lifelong learning. The proportion of Northern Ireland adults who are taking Higher Education courses on a part-time basis is a remarkable five times greater than the proportion in the Republic of Ireland."
That proves the point that I made in my opening remarks that personal achievement and betterment through education that is freely available to all is a prized asset. Why should we not praise success? What have we against praising that which is praiseworthy? Sometimes we take a negative view and adopt a negative attitude. In a clamour about transparency, equality of opportunity and justice we say that it is just that we should point out where good performance is taking place. However, it is equally just to point out where underperformance is taking place. We are unfair if we do not indicate places of underachievement and publicly encourage achievement. We should enhance our systems to achieve proper standards.
As a people, we cannot survive in the European or global economy, or economically perform in the field of information technology, unless we raise our standards. The method for doing that is to have openness, to publish, and to ensure that we are proud of what we do publish. We have enjoyed good standards, but there was an outburst when the Deputy First Minister — quite rightly — reacted on one occasion to tell us that he feared that our educational standards were dropping. Today we in the Education Committee are aware of that. Already we are putting in place the benchmarks and agreed targets to be achieved. We have discovered that at various key stages, instead of performance levels having risen, they have dropped from 85% to 77%. In another case they have fallen from 80% to 75%. People do not put in more money to move backwards.
As a society, we have a great belief in education. The fact that this debate is taking place is proof that we want to raise our standards and be proud of our educated society. I support the motion, and I thank Mr S Wilson for tabling it. I urge the Assembly to strive for success: the old expression was "Publish and be damned"; today I say "Publish and be proud of it".
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Mr Martin McGuinness: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I have some sympathy with the wording of Mr S Wilson’s motion, but Members will not be surprised to hear that I have a greater sympathy with the amendment that was put downby Ms Lewsley.
With regard to Sammy Wilson’s motion, it would be great if information could be published that would enable the good work that goes on in schools to be adequately measured and compared. The key word in the motion is "adequately", because that is where the school performance tables fall down — they do not do all schools justice. Over the last year, head teachers and teachers have often told me how unfairly the tables portrayed their schools. They said that no account had been taken of the ability of their pupils on entry, or of the circumstances in which they worked. All of the teachers’ hard work was portrayed instead as poor performance, because their schools were ranked against more affluent schools. The feedback from the teaching profession was that the tables were divisive and demoralising. Therefore I decided to launch a review and a consultation process to see if the objectives for the performance tables could be met in other ways. I was also conscious that the value of the tables had decreased because of the significant developments that have been taking place in education since they were first published in 1993.
Last October, the Department of Education issued a consultation paper containing three options to post-primary schools and to a wide range of other educational organisations. Option one was to keep the tables but do everything possible to improve them; option two was to ask schools to publish their results in their prospectuses; and option three was to ask the five education and library boards to publish the information in their annual transfer booklets. I was particularly interested in the views of parents, and for this purpose a leaflet was sent to all parents of year-eight pupils, the most recent group to have received a copy of the tables when choosing schools for their children. I also consulted with the Education Committee from an early stage, and it made a valuable contribution to the consultation process.
The consultation carried out by the Department of Education was comprehensive. There were over 1,000 responses, mostly from parents and schools. Of those, 75% were opposed to the continued publication of tables. That applied not only to the responses from teachers, it also applied to those from parents and others. Many who responded condemned the tables for being divisive and unfair. They said that they failed to offer schools the opportunity to give parents a rounded picture of the school.
Those who favoured the retention of the tables were unable to suggest how the criticisms of them could be addressed. A number of those who responded proposed the inclusion of value-added data, but no satisfactory way of doing this has been found, despite a continuing programme of research. I could not therefore see how such a proposal provided the basis for a realistic way forward.
Some commented that the tables challenged schools to drive up standards. I am not persuaded by that argument — all schools want to do their best for the pupils in their care, and they are continually striving to improve their performance. Schools are legally required to set targets for improving their performance, and that is supported by the supply of benchmarking data which enables them to compare their performances with those of schools of similar size and with similar circumstances. In addition, the Department of Education is funding a range of initiatives that has a direct impact on improving standards.
I decided to introduce option two, with immediate effect, after careful consideration of all of the responses to the consultation and the views expressed by the Education Committee. I did so for three main reasons: first, this option was favoured by the majority of respondents; secondly, it will provide up-to-date information on examination performance, and thirdly, it will give parents the most complete set of information about any school from a single source.
Schools are already required to publish information about examination performance in their prospectuses. I am concerned, however, that the information provided is consistent and accurate. With this in mind the Department of Education has started a review of the information required to ensure a standard approach. It is my intention that schools and parents will be fully consulted in this review and that all the points made in PatriciaLewsley’s amendment will be considered in its course. A consultation paper will be issued to allow those with an interest in this matter, especially parents, to make their views known.
I want to give the Education Committee every opportunity to contribute to the process. The Committee has already made some suggestions on what information should be in the prospectuses, and these will form part of the review. I will look carefully at the responses I receive before coming to a decision on the way forward. Schools’ requirements on the content of their prospectuses are contained in the education regulations. Those regulations will have to be amended to give effect to any proposed changes. I will take this opportunity to update the regulations in areas that are not directly related to the issue we are discussing today. These regulations will be placed before the Assembly for approval in the normal way.
Let me make it quite clear that there should still be means whereby schools can compare their performances with those of other schools and set targets for improvement. The Department of Education will continue to issue annual benchmarking information to schools, boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS). This will allow schools and other bodies to compare performances in the key stage assessments for post-primary schools in public examinations and attendance rates with other schools of similar size or with similar catchments, as expressed in terms of the proportion of pupils entitled to free school meals. As a basis for schools to set proper targets, this benchmarking information is just as effective as the performance tables, if not more so. If any Member would like to see a copy of the benchmarking information, I would be happy to have it sent to him or her.
My decision to end the publication of school performance tables is the right one for schools and parents. I have been heartened by the very positive response in recent weeks right across the spectrum. The decision has been welcomed by both grammar and non-grammar sectors and by parents and teachers. We have also shown the way for others to follow. Wales is currently conducting a review of its performance tables. It is a progressive move that will send the signal to parents that we want them to have the correct information when they come to choose a school for their children and to teachers that we value their hard work and dedication on behalf of our young people.
I want to reiterate the point that the decision has been widely welcomed. I am open to correction, but I know that the Member who tabled this motion, SammyWilson, was, and possibly still is, a member of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT). The union wholeheartedly supported my decision. SammyWilson also made the point that I ignored the Executive. I did not ignore anybody. I consulted fully with the Education Committee, and as a Minister in my own right, I took a decision that was within my area of authority.
It is a bit rich and very hypocritical of MrWilson to launch that accusation against me, particularly as the DUP Ministers have boycotted all meetings of the Executive since it was established. That does not hold water at all. It is also important that we refute the suggestion that the only way to resolve the situation in schools that are not performing well is to publish these tables. That is nonsense, because information on the programmes which the Department of Education is involved in is available to the CCMS, the education and library boards and the Department through the work of our inspectors. Many measures are in place to ensure that there is support and encouragement for schools to help them to continue to do better.
Patricia Lewsley and Danny Kennedy raised a number of important points on value-added information. It is pertinent to state that research on this topic has been carried out for some years. No satisfactory means has yet been found of including such information in a way that would recognise progression made through a broad range of qualifications and be readily understood by parents. I do not think that there are any special factors relating to our schools which would justify the commissioning of further research, but my Department is prepared to continue monitoring developments.
People may know that the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) has been examining the scope for introducing value-added measures. Late last year, DfEE published the results of a pilot project aimed at measuring added value based on the comparison between students’ achievements at GCSE and GCE A Level. That pilot is continuing this year. DfEE are due to publish a consultation document in March to take views on the methodology to be used for introducing value-added measures in a series of further pilot studies, which I am told are being proposed. The consultation will cover how value-added measures might be shown between key stages 2 and 3, between key stage 2 and public examinations at age 16, and between public examinations at age 16 and age 18. It is likely to be several years before a serviceable system is introduced; however, we will continue to monitor developments closely.
I congratulate Mr Tom Hamilton on his fine maiden speech. He effectively hit the nail on the head, and it amplified adequately a point I made when, prior to Christmas, I went to a concert in the Holy Trinity Secondary School in Cookstown performed by the teachers and pupils. It was one of the most amazing concerts I have attended in my life. During the evening, someone tapped me on the shoulder and asked if I was enjoying the concert. I said that I was, and then he said "How do you put that in a performance table?" He is absolutely right.
Ian Paisley Jnr made a number of points about denying people information and made allegations of censorship. I am all for giving people the fullest possible information, and we will be able to do that adequately with the information that schools will provide about the holistic work they are involved in. As regards the review, we will have a very important role in ensuring that accurate and complete information is available to all parents. I deny absolutely the allegations of censorship that have been made.
I appreciate the supportive and realistic comments of Mr McHugh and Mrs E Bell.

Mr Sammy Wilson: May I say at the very outset that — [Interruption]

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that the mover of the amendment should have an opportunity for a winding-up speech?

Sir John Gorman: You are absolutely right, Mr Kennedy. I call Ms Lewsley.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I will be very brief. I was not surprised at some of the words used this afternoon, words such as "denied power", "competition", "the best", "elite" and all those things that are automatically assumed when you talk about a league table. Mr Gibson mentioned the word "praiseworthy", and I would like to know what his definition of that is, because to me he was only praising those that were the best. What about the praiseworthiness of those who do not feature in the league tables? Mr Sammy Wilson talked about value for money and about how that needs to be output-related. How can we put a price on the value of learning?
Mr Tom Hamilton asked how one measures the fact that it has taken two or three years to stimulate and improve the ability of a child who has severe learning difficulties. Can this be quantified in monetary terms and compared to the money spent on somebody who got five As in GCSEs? Both Mr Sammy Wilson and Mr Tom Hamilton mentioned the morale of teachers who are in the league and feel that they are the elite. But what about teachers who have worked twice as hard, who deserve more praise but have been totally demoralised because of the league tables?
I ask Members to support the amendment.

Mr Sammy Wilson: May I make it quite clear from the outset that this motion is about ensuring that whatever information is provided gives an adequate means of measuring and comparing schools. The submission by the Education Committee suggested — and a number of people supporting the motion have said this — that performanceup tables are not the be-all and end-all, but a guide for comparing and measuring what a school does. Many of us have considered what other information might be required to make the information adequate to enable measurement and comparison to take place. So let me make this clear from the start: this is not a defence of the performance tables as published by the Department. Nevertheless, I believe that they provided some useful information.
Ms Patricia Lewsley and the parents she spoke to believe that it is for schools to deliver the information. If she had read the Education Committee’s document which she supported, it would have been clear to her that the Committee had concerns about schools doing this, first, on grounds of consistency and, secondly, with regard to gathering information for comparison. It appears that a number of Committee members do not read what goes out in their name or they would not have made some of the comments they have made today.
Ms Lewsley went on to say that schools ought to be about perpetual teaching rather than perpetual testing. That is a great line, but I must say that for a teacher it is a nonsense. Every teacher in every lesson seeks to test what he has done, whether by asking questions or giving homework by setting tests at the end of the week or examinations at the end of the year. Teaching is about testing. You must test what you have done; otherwise you do not know if you have achieved anything. There are various means of doing that testing, but it is absolute nonsense to talk about teaching outside the context of testing.
Indeed, Ms Lewsley sat through a Committee meeting today in which the Department told us that one of the ways in which it was going to measure —

Ms Patricia Lewsley: On a point of information, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was not at the Education Committee meeting today.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I am sorry; I made a mistake. I hope that the Member does not take this the wrong way, but I was mixing her up with EileenBell. She can take that as a compliment. I will come to that point in a moment.

Mr Danny Kennedy: For the benefit of the Assembly, to my recollection the only Member wearing a dress at the Education Committee earlier this afternoon was EileenBell.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I am sorry; I apologise for that confusion. I will come to that point later. Stay and listen to it, Eileen.
I will move on to Mr McHugh’s speech — made in his usual muddled way — in which he said that this decision should have been made by the Committee. The Committee made a three-page response, which, as far as I know, was endorsed by SinnFéin. I will not read the response for the record again, but it indicated that information for comparison ought to be published. It proposed that information supplied by schools alone was inadequate and would cause difficulties with comparison and consistency.
Mr McHugh told of his difficulty, which he later denied, in having this information publicised because the media could follow their own agenda. He later said that he did not object to this information’s being made available to everybody, so I am not sure whether he wants it publicised or not. If individual schools publish the information in their brochures, the papers will pick up on the information. On the one hand, he wants schools to supply the information, but he does not want it published. Once the information appears in a school brochure and is available to parents, it is in the public domain. This is typical of the position of SinnFéin members with the press. On one hand they love it, and on the other they want to censor it if it does not suit them.
MrMcHugh also spoke about how information did not take things such as social disadvantage into consideration. The motion that I have moved seeks to have included information that will give an adequate means of measuring and comparing. The Education Committee’s submission, which I am supporting, says exactly that. The Minister ought to make available benchmarking information as well as information on school performance, that will show all the matters that MrMcHugh spoke about. Perhaps that is why he supported it when it came from the Committee. However, now that it is on the Floor of the Assembly, he does not want to support it. It was a fairly muddled performance. Mr McHugh went on to say that he thought the abolishment of league tables was popular with parents, teachers and pupils. Option 2 was supported by only 40% of parents and pupils. A 54% majority of parents and pupils actually opposed option 2, the option that the Minister has gone for. The other figures were fairly evenly balanced: 44% to 55%, or 48% to 51%. There is no clear figure.
EileenBell — whom I mistook for PatriciaLewsley earlier on — said that we should get a total picture of what goes on in schools. This is odd coming from a party that recently published its own performance tables on this Assembly, and did it look —

Mrs Eileen Bell: They were not performance tables, but attendance tables, which are completely different. We did not say anything about performance, but may I take the opportunity —

Sir John Gorman: Is this a point of order?

Mrs Eileen Bell: Yes.

Sir John Gorman: Perhaps you could —

Mrs Eileen Bell: The Minister — I keep calling him the Minister — (Laughter)

Sir John Gorman: Let us have some order. Mrs Bell, I am standing so would you be kind enough to sit down.

Mrs Eileen Bell: The Minister — (Laughter)

Sir John Gorman: Will you please all settle down. This has all the air of a Gilbert and Sullivan comedy. We are dealing with a rather serious matter here. I do not think the public, the teachers — or the Minister — can be too elevated by the activities and hilarity with which this matter is being dealt. As to the question of what clothes people are wearing, we will draw a veil over that too. I ask you, Mr Wilson, to finish your winding-up speech.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I assure Mrs Bell that, whether she seeks to elevate me artificially or not, I will not go easy on her. I will still make the points that I wish to make.
The first point is that it does seem a bit odd that this party should talk about taking into account the whole picture of what goes on in a school, when it has published inadequate information about the performance of Members here — with no value-added information, nothing about the contribution they made in Committee and nothing about the length of time they stayed on a Committee. I will leave that matter aside for the moment.
Secondly, she said that the publication of information about school performance and test results puts pressure on pupils and teachers. That was where I made a mistake earlier — we sat through an Education Committee meeting this afternoon, in which the Department outlined how it intends to measure targets. Those targets were all about the percentage of people who got GCSEs —

Sir John Gorman: You are coming to the last minute of your allocated time.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I am coming to it. The targets were also about the percentage of people who got Key Stage 2 examinations. I think — although, again, I could be wrong — that not one bleat of opposition was raised. Does testing put pressure on schools? If so, should we not have these standards? Should the Minister be condemned for it?

Sir John Gorman: You have about five seconds.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I will not do justice to Mr Hamilton’s maiden speech in just five seconds. In deference to the fact that this was the Member’s maiden speech, you ought to give me a minute or two more. Mr Hamilton did make a number of very important points. He said that parents’ choice of a school is not based on academic results alone, and that is quite right. I am not saying that school performance tables are meant to be the sole basis of choice for parents, because there is a plethora of other information.
Mr Hamilton also talked about the morale of teachers. I agree. I have taught people —

Sir John Gorman: You must bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I am doing that now.
In closing, I believe that this motion ought to be supported by the House, because it seeks to ensure that the measurement of schools is presented more effectively than in the past and it deals with the deficit of information which we would have if we go ahead with the Minister’s plan.
Question put That the amendment be made.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 25; Noes 36.
Ayes
Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Joe Hendron, Patricia Lewsley, Kieran McCarthy, Alasdair McDonnell, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Pat McNamee, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.
Noes
Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Oliver Gibson, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Education to publish information which enables the performance of schools in Northern Ireland to be adequately measured and compared.

Asylum Seekers

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes with concern the report by the Law Centre, ‘Sanctuary in a Cell’, on the detention of asylum seekers and calls upon the Government to develop an alternative to detaining asylum seekers and to devise methods of expediting the application process.
I commend the Law Centre for publishing its report ‘Sanctuary in a Cell’. Many of us are aware of the issue surrounding asylum seekers and the treatment they are receiving from the authorities here, in the South and in Britain. The report does an excellent job of documenting that — it highlights some of the terrible abuses those people have had to put up with and the lack of welcome that many have experienced on this island. It makes some key and sound recommendations for improvements to the system.
Central to the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement is the vindication and protection of the human rights of all. That must include the rights of asylum seekers, and not just the rights of the people native to this island. The detention in prison of asylum seekers waiting for their applications to be processed — along with convicted criminals in many cases — for up to eight months without charge is nothing less than internment. Many people in the House, not just on these Benches but on some of the other Benches, know only too well the impact that has on individuals and their families. Such detention only serves to increase the uncertainty and hardship that asylum seekers face. It does nothing to alleviate their difficulties.
People left this country, and this island, in their millions as a result of political persecution and economic deprivation — be it Presbyterians from this part of the island a couple of centuries ago, people in general as a result of the famine or those persecuted for their Republican politics in the early part of the last century. It is common for anybody born on this island to have relatives, or people they know, who have left for other countries as a result of political persecution or economic necessity. The Irish diaspora is testament to that. Only in recent years has immigration from Ireland to Britain and the United States, particularly for economic reasons, ended.
Such experiences give people on this island a special insight into the plight of immigrants and exiles. We need that insight more than ever as we see, for the first time, a reversal of emigration and people coming to this island, and this country, and creating a more diverse Irish society. I call on the Assembly to back the recommendations of the Law Centre in its report ‘Sanctuary in a Cell’, which include the ending of the unneccessary detention of asylum seekers, the creation of non-custodial alternatives, the designation of the British Home Office a public body under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and full access to free legal advice and welfare and community services for asylum seekers.
Asylum seekers are entitled to have their application for asylum processed and to be accommodated while they await adjudication. They are not to blame for the current housing crisis — successive Governments are. They are also not responsible for the low levels of social welfare — successive Governments are. Finally, they are not responsible for the long delay in the processing of their applications; again successive Governments are.
In the first page of the executive summary of the report ‘Sanctuary in a Cell’, one can read that the British Government, in its 1999 White Paper on immigration and asylum, began its statement of policy principles by saying
"Any strategy for immigration control must, as well as reflecting operational requirements, satisfy fundamental policy principles. Chief among these are respect for human rights and for race equality."
This has clearly not been the case considering the experience of asylum seekers in this part of Ireland, the rest of Ireland and in Britain generally.
Here is one of the primary recommendations of the report:
"asylum seekers should be detained in cases of necessity, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. These permit detention in four narrow sets of circumstances only."
A LeasCheann Comhairle, I will struggle on against the background noise. You might not be able to hear it. The report also concludes that
"in no circumstances should asylum seekers be held with convicted prisoners."
However, that has been the case in Magilligan and in Maghaberry, where women asylum seekers have been held. No one who heard the report this morning on the radio could fail to be moved by the Algerian who was detained in Magilligan prison for almost a year. He ended up being seriously assaulted.

Mr Mick Murphy: On a point of order. I cannot hear the Member because of disruption from the other side of the Chamber. Will you do something about it?

Sir John Gorman: Would you repeat that please?

Mr Mick Murphy: I cannot hear the Member because of the noise coming from across the Chamber. I would appreciate if you did something about it.

Sir John Gorman: I understand your problem. Will Members please keep quiet while people are speaking?

Mr Conor Murphy: A LeasCheann Comhairle, bad manners coming from that corner of the Chamber are nothing new. They are something that the rest of us have learned to live with over the last while.
No one could have failed to be moved by the experience related by the Algerian asylum seeker this morning. He was detained for almost a year in Magilligan prison. He was seriously assaulted there and was severely traumatised. This was a man who had left very dangerous and difficult political circumstances to try and find some comfort in this part of the world.
One of the key recommendations is that this use of detention — which, it appears, the Government here, and certainly in other areas, has used almost as a first measure — is clearly meant to be used as the very last resort. In many cases, it is the very first measure that authorities resort to. Another key recommendation from the report is that "a dedicated accommodation facility" should be developed in Belfast. Some concern has been expressed to me recently that the Government may be considering providing a dedicated accommodation facility in Britain. Many Republicans and Nationalists — in many cases very innocent Nationalists — know the difficulty one has in trying to sustain any sort of relationship while someone is detained across the water. Visiting is difficult, as is trying to maintain family relations in such circumstances. Given the number of asylum seekers who have landed in this part of Ireland, there is merit and justification in creating a dedicated accommodation facility in Belfast — not simply removing the problem by shipping people over to Britain, therefore creating an even worse problem for those seeking asylum here. There are many other key recommendations in the report, but I will not go into them, because the Law Centre has sent a summary to most Members. I urge the Assembly to fully endorse very publicly the recommendations made in the report.
The British and Irish Governments have adopted an antagonistic approach to the issue. It is the responsibility of those in this Chamber to give leadership on the issue of asylum seekers and on the racism, which is quite often involved. The situation in the South is not good either and asylum seekers are being stigmatised there also. We need to see the development of legislation with regard to asylum seekers — preferably by the Irish and British Governments, so that we have the highest international standards in the protection and vindication of the human rights of asylum seekers across the island of Ireland.
In many instances, those who come here from other countries are not aware of the difficulties, the differences and the different jurisdictions on the island of Ireland. Indeed, a case was reported to me of an eastern European who was living in the Dundalk area with his young son. He was selling the ‘Big Issue’ magazine in order to raise some money for his son and himself, and when he moved to Newry to sell the publication, he was unaware that he had crossed a border. He was arrested and detained for a couple of months. If other immigrants in the Dundalk area had not cared for his son, he would have been taken into state care. It was hugely traumatising for both the father and the son.
There must be a common approach to asylum seekers on this island, from both the Irish and the British Governments, to ensure that there are no additional difficulties for asylum seekers if they stray from North to South or vice versa. We have found that Governments, particularly the British Government, are more anxious to deport asylum seekers rather than proceed with a proper system of assessment. A fair hearing and fair living and working conditions for those seeking asylum should be quickly put in place.
A Cheann Comhairle, a huge richness can be gained from multiculturalism. Through information, education and political leadership, fear and misunderstanding can be replaced by the embracing of the growing diversity in Irish society, North and South. I hope that the motion will secure support from across the House. As Members know, this is not a devolved responsibility. As has been the case when other reserved matters have been brought before the Assembly, this is an opportunity for us to speak on the issue with one clear voice and say that the system of dealing with asylum seekers is wrong and in need of change. It is an opportunity to urge the British Government and, indeed, the Dublin Government — who, I hope, are listening to the debate — to take note of our concerns on this issue and act accordingly. Go raibh maith agat.

Mrs Iris Robinson: If anyone else had brought this issue before the Assembly, it would have been treated with more seriousness. However, it is either a joke or the height of hypocrisy for an organisation like Sinn Féin/IRA to move such a motion. This is an organisation with a Fascist attitude towards its fellow citizens, yet it is complaining about the way in which asylum seekers are treated in Northern Ireland.
While one may have sympathy for the plight of asylum seekers, serious questions must be asked about those who want to jump on this particular bandwagon. According to the Law Society, 400 asylum cases arise in Northern Ireland each year. However, the number of people who have become asylum seekers as a result of thuggish organisations like Sinn Féin/IRA is vast in comparison to that figure. Organisations like Sinn Féin/IRA have created at least 800 exiles or refugees. Did they raise any concerns about that? Here is an organisation that has been responsible for making hundreds of people exiled, forcing them to seek asylum across the world. Have there been any apologies for that? No. Has Sinn Féin/IRA ever admitted that it was wrong to exile its co-religionists? No. Has it issued a statement that not only condemns such behaviour, but tells those whom they have exiled and made into refugees that they can come home to their families? No.
There is no use in Sinn Féin/IRA’s coming to the Assembly to complain about the plight of asylum seekers, and bleating that more should be done for them, while it has created the very same circumstances for others itself. What about all the people whom it has turned out of their homes, forcing them to become refugees? These people are forgotten victims of our troubles. Here is an organisation that was quick to get its prisoners out of jail, yet it has said nothing about the refugees it helped create.
I might add that those who signed the Belfast Agreement said nothing about it either. According to evidence given last year, in the past, one person was being forced into exile from Northern Ireland every week. Of course, Sinn Féin/IRA denied that this was the case, but it would, would it not? Until this country is no longer a paramilitary haven, or a Mafia-run Province from which people are exiled on a whim, it will be difficult to get it right for those seeking asylum from other countries.
To engage in an exercise such as this is an attempt to create an illusion of order when there is chaos. It is an illusion created by those who want to turn attention away from themselves and their human rights abuses while claiming that asylum seekers are being denied proper treatment here in Northern Ireland. What a catalogue of human rights abuses there has been at the hands of Sinn Féin/IRA.

Mr Jim Shannon: Does the Member agree that something is seriously wrong given that young people have had to seek sanctuary and asylum in churches across the Province because they have been living in fear of their lives from IRA/Sinn Féin? Does she also agree that the proposal before us, from a party representing IRA/Sinn Féin, is the height of hypocrisy?

Mrs Iris Robinson: I thank my Colleague for his intervention. I totally concur with his views.
The hypocrisy is evident here given the way in which Northern exiles have been treated, and the treatment that asylum seekers receive, is a matter that needs urgent attention. I take this opportunity to ask that the Law Society compile a report on that issue of exiles. It was very quick to furnish us with briefing papers for today’s debate.
I would usually support humane conditions for asylum seekers. However, given that that party moved this motion not out of genuine concern for those people but simply to trot out ad nauseam the usual anti-British propaganda, I cannot support it.

Mr David Ford: Mrs Robinson referred on a number of occasions to hypocrisy. However, judging from her final couple of sentences, for her to suggest that she may agree with the motion but cannot support it because of who proposed it comes close to hypocrisy itself in my book.
I share some of the concerns raised about the past activities of some of those people associated with the party that has moved the motion.

Mr Roy Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr David Ford: Give me a chance to start.
It is time we accepted at least that if there is a motion before the House we should consider what it says and not use it as an opportunity to slag off other people. I hope that when Mr C Murphy winds up he will give us some view of his concerns about asylum seekers who have left this island in more recent years than the Presbyterian victims of establishment oppression over two centuries ago or the famine victims of a century and a half ago.
I applaud much of what Mr C Murphy said on the report — and I do not intend to repeat it — because it tackles a wide issue concerning the entire way in which asylum seekers are treated in this society, throughout the UK and on the rest of this island. There is no doubt that we have huge problems, such as the backlog of applications, created in large part by Government policy. People know that it will take so long to get adjudication that they are keener to come to the UK than they might otherwise be. It is certainly a pull factor in some respects because of the inadequacies of Government policy.
Language, culture and past historical links mean that Britain, and to a lesser extent Ireland, has become a haven for some asylum seekers. Despite all that, we know from statistics in the last year that the UK was only tenth in the league of EU countries accepting asylum seekers. That is a small number compared with other countries.
The motion concentrates rightly on the Law Centre report ‘Sanctuary in a Cell’. I also add my congratulations to the Law Centre and, in particular, to Victoria Tennant for producing an excellent report which highlights both the legal aspects and the human suffering of the way in which asylum seekers are treated. We should remember that it is not just in prison that asylum seekers have problems. In many cases, asylum seekers outside prison live in deplorable conditions. Most of them live in houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). The last statistic that I saw showed that 17% of the houses were unfit and 80% of them were fire risks.
Asylum seekers do not receive the same social security payments as any other person. They have to contend with the demeaning voucher system. Last week, J Sainsbury — a firm not unconnected with the Government — felt it necessary to object to the administration of the voucher system because of its inadequacies and the unfair way in which it treated people. Perhaps the Government believes that these difficult, awkward, tough measures will deter asylum seekers from entering the United Kingdom. However, even the conditions that people might endure in Maghaberry and Magilligan will not deter those who have come from worse conditions in such countries as Afghanistan or many of the central and east African countries. The problems and inadequacies in the treatment of asylum seekers will persist while the Government makes it almost impossible for them to legally enter the United Kingdom. However, after a period of detention, those who do manage to reach the United Kingdom will remain.
It is a back-to-front policy, which leads to intolerable conditions for people in many circumstances. Those people awaiting adjudication have multiple problems: lack of interpreters; lack of schooling for children; lack of proper healthcare; lack of an adequate diet. Those problems are largely exacerbated when one member of the family is detained in prison. It is a symptom of the institutional racism that exists in Northern Ireland and throughout these islands and it results in the demeaning treatment that many asylum seekers receive. Undoubtedly, the sort of institutional racism that is being perpetrated at Dover every day is also perpetrated on people with black skins who get off a train at Connolly Station. It is time that the Assembly stated that it finds that treatment unacceptable, whether or not it has direct control over it. That racism is manifested in unrealistic demands placed upon those seeking entry to Britain.
Over the weekend, when I was thinking about this debate, I was given a leaflet produced by one of the charities that works with refugees. The front cover reads
"In just a few minutes soldiers will break down your door. They’ve already killed your father and raped your daughter. Now they are coming for you. What should you take? Quick. Think. Money? Your passport? A family photo?"
They will also need warm clothes. That is the sort of decision that some people who arrive in this country face. They arrive with those difficulties. The Assembly should be objecting to those situations and making its views very clear. The Assembly should be working with other bodies across these islands to promote a diverse and pluralist society in Northern Ireland. This island already has a degree of cultural diversity with communities of first- and second-generation migration. Those people came from a wide range of backgrounds from across the world.
When it has suited the Government, economic migrants have been welcomed. Look at the Health Service. Even primary care and rural areas of Northern Ireland depend to a considerable extent on those who have come from overseas. Asylum seekers — whatever their reason for seeking asylum in these islands — should be treated with the same dignity and given the same rights as those who have come and been welcomed by the Government. I applaud the motion as it has been presented.

Mr John Fee: The SDLP supports the motion. It is a timely motion, because this is the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the convention relating to the status of refugees. That convention sets the standards in this area and forms a central part of a growing body of international human rights law.
The focus and central thesis of that body of legislation — that there is an inherent dignity in every human person — must be highlighted. Europe receives a large number of refugees, but only a minority of those in the world as a whole. There are many other regions of the world that shoulder a disproportionate responsibility. However, in a global context the Assembly’s response will be carefully monitored. History will judge us harshly if we fail to respond humanely to contemporary refugee flows. The SDLP is fully committed to protecting the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers, and we recognise the special plight of those who flee persecution and make it to NorthernIreland. We welcome the Law Centre’s report and commend it for its work, not only in the report, but in the whole area of human rights. We are convinced that Governments should adopt alternative mechanisms for dealing with asylum seekers and refugees.
Detention should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances. This issue has been neglected for too long. Detention in prison is a profoundly unacceptable way of addressing the needs of those fleeing persecution. Its extended use in Britain and parts of NorthernIreland breaches international standards. We must never forget that those who seek asylum are often fleeing from the most harsh treatment elsewhere. We call on the Government to rethink their current restrictive approach and to develop policy in line with the recommendations contained in the report.
We welcome the idea of an advisory body on immigration and asylum. We agree that the Home Office should be designated a public body and should be responsible for the purposes of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We also believe that the Prison Service, like other public bodies, should have a comprehensive race-relations policy in place. We have stressed the importance of developing an anti-racism policy in all of Ireland, North and South.
The SDLP, therefore, supports the main thrust of the report and we ask the Government to respond swiftly to its recommendations. I cannot stress enough that asylum seekers are not criminals. They are exercising a universally recognised right which is contained in article14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 which allows them to seek asylum and refuge in NorthernIreland. The act of seeking asylum in itself cannot be considered a crime.
In this the fiftieth anniversary year of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, we emphasise the enduring importance of that legislation and, particularly, the valuable work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). At present, the UNHCR is undertaking a process of global consultations. We hope that that will result in a far better system of international refugee protection which will afford priority to the human rights of all refugees and asylum seekers. However, any system which might be put in place must adhere to the numerous international standards which currently apply. The 1951 convention defines a refugee as someone with a well founded fear of persecution.
Members on all sides of the Assembly have seen people from our community, our neighbours and, in many cases, family members fleeing from persecution, from fear and from threat of violence. We are the very people who should know, better than anybody else, that to be received with compassion and humanity is an absolute expectation that any refugee who comes to NorthernIreland must have. We must respond to that. There are many other international standards. The UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (1988) states that all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be treated in a humane manner and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
Article5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) deals with the right of everyone to liberty and security of the person. Liberty is a fundamental human right which is recognised in all major human rights instruments. The detaining of asylum seekers and refugees in Britain and NorthernIreland is an absolute affront to those international standards and rights.
We must take this opportunity to encourage everyone in our society to take a responsible attitude towards this issue. In every part of civic society, in public life and in the media we are collectively responsible for the climate we create on this island. We must all work towards creating a society tolerant of others, which has no time and no place for racism and xenophobia — either outside or inside this Chamber. Under the Good Friday Agreement we are committed to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all. The new beginning so many of us want to see in Northern Ireland must include human rights and equality for all of us, including those people who come to seek refuge with us. The human rights values, which we, on all sides, are committed to, must have an impact also on the lives of refugees and asylum seekers.
In the SDLP we firmly agree that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is correct when he states that detention should normally be avoided. Detention involves extreme hardship for any individual fleeing persecution. It is therefore profoundly disturbing that any person who is fleeing persecution in another state should come to Northern Ireland only to find himself detained. Detention has been criticised, not only by the UNHCR, but by the UN Committee Against Torture and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

Mr Jim Wells: Is the hon Member trying to suggest that those who come here seeking asylum should not be detained anywhere? Everyone would accept that if someone has to be detained he should be detained in humane conditions, but it seems that the Member is suggesting that all asylum seekers should simply be allowed out into the community without any form of restriction.

Mr John Fee: I am suggesting that a whole range of alternative support mechanisms to ensure that these people are treated properly and equitably needs to be put in place in this country and within this jurisdiction. Detention should be considered only as a last resort and in those circumstances. That is not my view or the SDLP’s view; that is the conclusion of almost every international body dealing with human rights.
We could recommend this report simply because it highlights an issue often neglected in Northern Ireland. However, we must also recognise that it proposes a range of practical measures. It clearly addresses the problem and contains concrete solutions. It is therefore a very timely and useful contribution to this debate. The SDLP firmly believes that detention should only be used in very exceptional circumstances. Asylum seekers have the right to seek refuge in Northern Ireland and should never be treated like criminals for doing so.
Ultimately, however, I recognise that we all have to work towards eradicating the root causes of flight from persecution, fear and deprivation. Because of the way we treat each other and treat issues like this in this Chamber and around these desks, I would have thought that we might be able to establish a model for others to deal with this problem elsewhere.

Mr David Hilditch: The issue before the House is a reserved matter. Nonetheless, it gives our community many concerns — not least because the motion has its origins in the Sinn Féin/IRA quarter. The issue of asylum seekers is quite emotive. We have noted, in recent times, the concerns of residents in areas of southern England, and a number of horrific tragedies which have led to many deaths. An asylum seeker is currently easy prey for those who set out deliberately to exploit the vulnerable. We can readily identify the likes of unscrupulous hauliers who, if they so desire, can charge enormous amounts of money to smuggle human beings in horrendous conditions across frontiers. Evil drug barons will seduce them into becoming couriers with the incentive of a new life. One could continue this with a catalogue of horrendous stories but, on many occasions, considering their ordeals, a prison cell with support services can be very acceptable.
The asylum seeker has become a black market commodity, something to be bought or sold, used or disregarded in the same way that we have seen so many of our young people in Northern Ireland used and abused by Sinn Féin/IRA. Indeed, the Member who brings this motion before the House knows no bounds of hypocrisy. On one hand he appears to be championing the cause of the individual who struggles against oppression, but on the other hand he belongs to an organisation that is inextricably linked to a fully armed terrorist organisation committed to imprisoning people against their will and dishing out punishment beatings, not to mention driving people out of the community to seek refuge in other countries. The mover of the motion is, unfortunately, part of a system of asylum makers.
The motion can be broken down into two issues. First, the use of Magilligan and Maghaberry as detention centres. The Northern Ireland Prison Service has acknowledged that prison facilities are not appropriate for the accommodation of asylum seekers — we can see that in the Law Centre (NI) report — and that it is unable to effectively and comprehensively meet their needs. However, we should also note that, where possible, the prison service has genuinely attempted to adapt facilities and services to the needs of those detained. I believe, looking at the present figures and circumstances, that that is the best we can expect, particularly as the current Home Office review may recommend transferring detainees to facilities in Scotland. That would further separate families and stop them from joining the communities they wish to join.
Members should be aware that, for most of the time, the asylum seeker is an unknown quantity. Let us not forget that in some cases one country’s asylum seeker is another country’s terrorist. We know nothing of their backgrounds or activities, or what they may have been involved with in their country of origin. It is only right that all precautionary measures and methods are adopted until such time as a satisfactory conclusion is reached in each case. Although we have an unsatisfactory situation at the moment, it is probably best kept in place in lieu of anticipated Home Office directives.
The plight of the asylum seeker is one with which I have much sympathy. All that any decent human being could wish for is to be able to live and raise a family without fear or prejudice; to be able to work and prosper and be in control of their own destiny. However, the second part of the motion calls on Government to devise and develop methods of expediting the application process. It must be acknowledged that the main cause of this problem can lie with the asylum seeker. I am surprised that the average period of detention until information is cleared is only 54 days. It has already been established that background information about most asylum seekers is lacking.
Most of them arrive in this country without official papers or identification. Even though those documents may have been in their possession when they left their country of origin, their papers somehow disappear once they are detained. Officials are then faced with the frustrating process of establishing an accurate picture, as in many cases false information is given. It may be that at a series of interviews conflicting answers are given, which makes the officers’ jobs particularly awkward and the application process virtually impossible.
Members should remember that there are two sides to this difficult and sensitive issue. It is best left to the expertise of the Home Office, rather than the party/paramilitary organisation that brought forward this motion.

Mr Roy Beggs: I have sympathy with the views expressed in the motion and by other Members. I believe that the origin of the motion is relevant. It is hypocritical for Sinn Féin to attempt to appear concerned about human rights, while not demonstrating that on the ground.
Genuine asylum seekers must be dealt with sympathetically and looked after. There are many people trying to bring normal democratic rights to their society who are being abused by dictators or by communist or extreme right-wing regimes. Society has a responsibility to assist those people whose lives have been put in jeopardy while trying to uphold democratic principles.
On the other hand, many who claim to be asylum seekers are moving for economic reasons. Such cases must be dealt with speedily, and economic migrants should be repatriated as soon as possible, so that assistance can be concentrated on the genuine asylum seekers. Both groups must be looked after sympathetically until such times as the authorities can establish which group an individual belongs to.
It is important to note that the motion has been tabled by Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin/IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries continue to abuse human rights in Northern Ireland. Such groups cannot simply say that that is something from their past that they have left behind. Sinn Féin has yet to prove that it has left its past behind.
The abuse of human rights continues. So-called punishment beatings are an abuse of an individual’s body and can wreck someone’s life forever. Both sets of paramilitaries continue to impose exclusions; people are forced to leave Northern Ireland and become asylum seekers elsewhere. Such people stay away; they are afraid to go back home. Sinn Féin has yet to address that problem, although it is still happening today. That is hypocrisy.
I can speak from the experience of my town; the actions of Republicans there should be carefully examined. Republicans have imposed exclusions on Nationalists and Unionists from Larne. Republicans should examine what has happened, and I would be interested to learn whether such actions, carried out in the name of Republicanism, take place with the blessing of Sinn Féin, or are carried out by individuals outside the Sinn Féin family. Whatever the case, Republicans in Larne have forced Nationalists to move out of Northern Ireland. A few days ago, there was a shotgun attack in Larne. My information is that that attack — on a Nationalist family — was carried out by Republicans from that estate. Republicans must decide whether they have left their past behind them, ceased the exclusion of citizens from Northern Ireland and adopted purely democratic principles.
The origin of the motion is important. I am sorry to say that, on this occasion, although I have sympathy with the motion, I cannot support it.

Ms Mary Nelis: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. English rule in Ireland gave us the penal laws and the famine. Millions of people were forced to leave the country to seek asylum. Many of those Irishmen and Irishwomen — Presbyterian and Catholic — made a new life in their new country. They also made a great contribution to the growth of those countries. Presbyterians who were forced to leave Ireland because of the penal laws became the founding fathers of the United States. People of the Irish diaspora — what the former President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, called the "fifth province" — are a major influence in the political, social and economic life of many nations. Many of those arriving here now are no different; they are seeking refuge from persecution and intolerance.
Iris Robinson and many others on the Unionist Benches seek to make this motion a political points-scoring exercise. We could all do that. For example, I could talk about the thousands of Catholics who were forced to move south in 1969 as a result of pogroms by the RUC and the B-Specials. Some of them, for all we know, may be sitting in this Chamber. However, we do know that the founder of the DUP, Dr Paisley, was a prime mover in the lead-up to the pogroms in 1969 and certainly all pogroms since.
This motion, a LeasCheann Chomhairle, is about justice, tolerance and human rights. Asylum seekers are fleeing from persecution in countries where the arms trade flourishes. Any refugee who tries to come to Britain or to the South of Ireland on his initiative will find humanitarianism in short supply when he arrives. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 has effectively torn up the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Convention enabled people who had a fear of persecution on the grounds of political affiliation, race, religion, nationality or membership of a social group to seek refuge in foreign countries. Today those countries do not want refugees from Third World civil wars. Certainly, New Labour in England does not want them turning up there, no matter how much torture or persecution they have experienced.
The Act is intended to deter people from seeking asylum in Britain. Since the 1971 Immigration Act, the British authorities have used the imposition of visa requirements to prevent certain people from coming to Britain, and that legislation extends here. What is more important, if, under the new powers, an asylum seeker has already been refused leave to enter, he or she will automatically become an illegal immigrant on applying for asylum in Britain. The United Nations Convention on Human Rights has complained that the trend towards visa control may be in breach of the 1951 Convention.
The policy of deterrence continues when asylum seekers arrive here. The 1971 Immigration Act brought in the power to detain illegal immigrants, and that is happening here. Our prisons are full of innocent, persecuted people who are thrown into prison by virtue of this legislation as well as those under examination and those about to be deported.
In practice today, the Government are allowed to lock up hundreds of asylum seekers — often for many months at a time — who have committed no crime in this country. If they request bail, there is no presumption of liberty, and the Home Office requests sureties that they cannot afford. Many of these refugees do not understand why they are in prison or detention centres, and there is no limit to their detention.
The Government plan to extend their detention facilities. New legislation introduced a new procedure for those in prison. Detainees lose the right to go to court for a bail hearing. Instead, they are given a video link to a magistrate. There is no legal aid for representation, which means that detainees, who often speak no English, or a very poor level of the language, have to defend themselves.
The Human Rights Act 1998, a LeasCheann Chomhairle, which is supposed to prevent the deprivation of liberty, does not cover asylum seekers who have sought unauthorised entry, in other words, those without leave to enter without a passport.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the course of the rant we have just heard, the Member made a number of illegal allegations about another Member, whom she named. If she were to repeat those claims outside the House, she would find herself in court. I hope that the normal rule will apply and that the Member who was attacked will be able to make a personal statement when he is next in the Chamber.

Sir John Gorman: Yes, my view is that the Member must not do that. It is not parliamentary, right or proper and I hope that she will not do so again.

Ms Mary Nelis: A LeasCheann Comhairle, the trend for making allegations in the House has been set by the Member who has just spoken.
There is no mechanism to verify what an asylum seeker has said to a immigration officer, and there is little provision in the current procedures to account for trauma; for the long and difficult journeys; or for simple errors in recounting how asylum seekers enter this country. The current legislation is racist. Asylum seekers are the persecuted diaspora victims of the 21st century arms race. They are entitled to be treated as human beings in need of our care and protection. They do not deserve to be treated as criminals. If allowed, they can make a valuable contribution to the pluralist and diverse society that we seek to put in place.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The Member represents Sinn Féin, which claims to be an all-Ireland party. Will she not agree that many of the criticisms made of the United Kingdom law with respect to asylum seekers, which may or may not be valid, have been made equally forcibly about the situation south of the border in the Irish Republic?

Ms Mary Nelis: If Dr Birnie had been listening, he would know that I said that at the beginning of my speech and that the proponent of the motion also said the same thing. Yes, we deplore the legislation in the South of Ireland every bit as much as we deplore it in Great Britain.

Mr Jim Wells: Writ large over this motion is the word "hypocrisy". The spokesman for the IRA who moved the motion no doubt has in his office a list of the thousands of innocent people in this Province, both Catholic and Protestant, who have been banished to Britain, to Europe and to north America by his organisation. If he had stood up and said that his organisation was going to issue an amnesty to those people, he could start to lecture us about human rights. How many thousands of people are there whose only way to hear of this debate is through the World Service on the radio or the Internet, because they can never return to Northern Ireland? Why can they never return to Northern Ireland? The reason is that his thugs will ensure that either their features are rearranged or they are murdered for returning.
What about the situation in Londonderry where one of his friends lured three of these people back who were promptly taken out to flats in the Bogside and had bullets put in their heads. That is how this organisation deals with asylum seekers. They are invited back and then murdered.
Frankly this motion cannot receive any support because of its proponent. It is hypocrisy, it is wrong and it is a disgrace.
Let us now look at the terms of the motion. Even if someone reasonable proposed the motion, like my Friend MrHay here, I still could not support it. We must ask why Home Office authorities have to detain immigrants and asylum seekers in the first place. Many decent people are genuinely seeking asylum from persecution. We have heard the sad tales from places like Kosovo and we have heard of the disgraceful persecution of Christians in Sudan and of ethnic minorities in places like India. We accept that that goes on. Those people are deserving cases who should receive asylum in western Europe. That we accept.
Unfortunately they are swamped by thousands if not millions of economic migrants who are moving from one part of the world to the other in order to get a better lifestyle. Statistics show that when the Home Office gets to the bottom of the various cases and checks their papers, they find that the main reason for the move is economic.
Two recent examples have emerged. There is a huge increase in the number of Chinese citizens applying to do degrees at universities, particularly in southern England, and especially in London. It has been discovered that in almost every case, the Chinese student obtains the necessary qualifications by falsehood in China, applies to a university in England, and then promptly drops out and disappears into the community, never to be seen again. In a recent BBC documentary it has been shown that many so-called immigrants seeking asylum use false addresses in Bosnia or other former Yugoslavian countries in order to get—[Interruption]. MrDeputy Speaker, someone seems to be interrupting.
They use false addresses in the former Yugoslavian republics in order to try and hoodwink the British authorities into believing that they come from a country where there is genuine persecution, when they did not live there in the first place. They then get into the United Kingdom and disappear.
If every immigrant who came into this country agreed to stay in a certain place, where his movements could be traced and where the Home Office authorities could contact him, there would be no need for detention. However, the reality is that a huge proportion of those who are not checked up on simply disappear into immigrant communities throughout the United Kingdom. It is estimated that there are over 1 million illegal immigrants in the United Kingdom. That has led to a traffic in humanity, which is disgraceful and which we should not be encouraging.
The flow of immigrants to Northern Ireland is thankfully smaller than to any other part of the United Kingdom — I believe we dealt with 71 cases last year. It is unfortunately an essential element of the process that those people are detained in secure accommodation until their cases are dealt with. I accept that Magilligan, Maghaberry or some other prison, are not the best places to keep someone seeking asylum. We need an alternative, which has to be secure and humane. The crucial point is that the person must remain there until his case is assessed, or until a stage is reached when the Home Office can decide that that person will not simply drift away.
I have several more questions. If all of these people are genuine migrants, why do they pass through eight, nine or 10 democratic countries before they come to the United Kingdom? Why, for instance, does a Romanian leaving his country, not emigrate to Austria, Germany, Holland or France? There are any number of democratic countries, which are alternatives to Northern Ireland, or the United Kingdom in general. I have to suggest that one of the reasons why they pass through all those countries and come to the United Kingdom is that it is perceived that the range of social security benefits is better in the United Kingdom than elsewhere.
It indicates to me that a lot of this is simply about people wanting to better themselves economically. There is nothing wrong with wanting to do that, but I do not believe that we, as United Kingdom taxpayers, should pick up the bill for it.
The United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, is an overcrowded country. We have 56 million inhabitants. Frankly, we have enough difficulties trying to look after the socially deprived, the unemployed and the handicapped in our own community without a wave of economic immigrants coming from other parts of the world.
I wish to reiterate that I am not against the genuine, persecuted individual getting into Northern Ireland. Remember the contribution that the Huguenots have made to this society. We still see their contribution throughout areas like the Lagan Valley. They have made an important contribution. The Jewish community, which unfortunately is now dwindling in Northern Ireland, made a very significant contribution to the financial well-being of the Province. However, they were genuine, persecuted minorities. What we are facing at the moment, I am afraid, is not the same. Genuine people are welcome in the Province, but Northern Ireland simply cannot cope with a wave of economic migrants.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am disappointed, but not surprised, at the response to the motion from some of the people on the opposite Benches. I had anticipated that, but I had hoped against hope, as I said in my own address. I chose not to make any political points against political parties. I see them running out now before we answer them — scurrying away from the truth and their racist rants, which were an embarrassment.
Thank God the Public Galleries were empty, especially when Mr Wells was speaking. Some of his xenophobic comments were an embarrassment to the House. Then these Members scurry out rather than listen to what we have to say.
I am sorry that that was the tone of the debate. The merits or demerits of the report published by the Law Centre, that has no political axe to grind, should have been debated. The fact that Sinn Féin proposed it rather than anyone else is merely an accident. Any Member of the House could have proposed it, and I dare say every Member would have supported it as well.
I will go through some of the responses. We had much of the same from Members from the DUP, which is sadly predictable. Mrs Nelis responded well to their points about hypocrisy. This is the party of Ulster Resistance, the party of Harryville intimidation, the party of Drumcree intimidation. It is also a homophobic party, which not only discriminates against Catholics and people of other ethnic origins but also against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation. To take a lecture in human rights from people like that is a bit rich.
As David Ford and Roy Beggs said, if the DUP wants a debate on how communities deal with criminals in the absence of an acceptable policing service, it should put down a motion and we will gladly debate it. In essence, that is not what we are dealing with here. Another amusing thing is that we sit on Committees with these people — everyone knows this, the media know it and I dare say the electorate knows it, particularly the Unionist electorate. We sit on Assembly Committees, we make proposals and suggestions and we have no problem having them accepted by most parties. Suddenly the cameras appear, and people put on their super-Unionist outfits and cannot support anything that comes from Sinn Féin. That hypocrisy stands up and is seen and the Unionist electorate is not fooled by some of the stances taken here today.
Mrs Robinson did not care to listen when I was speaking earlier, and she does not care to listen now either. So what is new? She accused me of an anti-British rant. Mrs Nelis responded quite clearly to Dr Birnie. We are as critical of the Irish Government in their response to this issue as we are of the British Government. It is certainly not a rant against the British Government.
I welcome Mr Ford’s support for the motion. I agree with his concerns about the plight of asylum seekers who are not in detention and the difficulties they face. He made the point about people being exiled from this part of the world. My party and I have said that exiling people is not a satisfactory response to criminal behaviour. Other party members and I have encouraged people to adopt non-violent, community-based responses to crime through restorative justice projects. We have spent months upon months, as other parties in the House have done, trying to ensure the establishment of a proper policing service that we can all support. That would remove the need for communities to deal with criminals in their midst.
I also thank John Fee for his support for the motion. I share the concerns he expressed on behalf of his party about the global response to refugees. I welcome his own and his party’s support for recommendations in the report. I appreciate the point he made about people being forced into exile. As he spoke, I was reminded of a document that hangs in my office, signed by Dawson Bates, one of the first Ministers here. It is a document that excluded my grandfather from the Six Counties of Northern Ireland, including Belfast. He was a resident of County Armagh, but was forced into exile in the Twenty- six Counties. He was jailed on his return to the Six Counties, as he tried to come home to his family. I know all about exile, as do plenty of people in my party. I hang the document in my office to remind me of the humanitarian nature of previous Administrations here.
I also appreciate Mr Fee’s point about the creation of a responsible attitude, and I make the point again about Mr Wells’s contribution and some media contributions on the issue of asylum seekers. That sort of racist rant stirs up a feeling of "We cannot afford these people; they do not belong to the island". That is interesting coming from the people it does. If people had adopted that attitude, a few generations back this island would be a more sparsely inhabited place than it is now, especially this part of it. We welcome the benefits that economic refugees brought centuries ago, but suddenly the ports are sealed, the airports are closed and the border is sealed, and nobody is coming in to benefit from the lifestyle we have here.
Mr Hilditch appears to adopt a confused attitude in that he describes asylum seekers as an unknown quantity; they could well be terrorists and could be masquerading here deliberately misleading those trying to deal with their applications for asylum. On the other hand, he professes to have great sympathy with asylum seekers. It is a somewhat confused response.
Mr Beggs made the point about economic immigrants. People who live on this island have an extremely short memory as far as economic immigrants are concerned. He calls for them to be "sympathetically repatriated", in his humanitarian way. If all the economic immigrants who left this island had been sympathetically repatriated — and I am sure they included people from his constituency — there would probably not be any room left on the island for himself.
I should not have been surprised about it, but I was astounded that he chose the debate to launch attacks on Republicans and on organised Republican activity in the Larne area. I have yet to hear him speak on television about the nightly attacks on Catholics in the Larne constituency. Perhaps I have missed it. The people of that area may well not hear his contribution.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Will the Member agree that when Mr Beggs took the chance to talk about Larne today he did not take the opportunity to talk about those nightly attacks; to acknowledge that it is Catholics and Nationalists who are bearing the brunt of those attacks? He did not chose to take the opportunity he had today — speaking as the Member of that constituency — to appeal to all constituents in the area, Protestants, Catholics, Unionists and Nationalists to work together. He did not ask people from his own constituency and from his own party to come out and publicly support and defend their Catholic neighbours.

Mr Conor Murphy: I agree totally.

Sir John Gorman: Are you winding up now?

Mr Conor Murphy: I am — you will be pleased to hear.
I agree with what the Member has said.

Mr Ivan Davis: It would be fair to say that Mr Beggs referred to the Loyalist paramilitaries in his speech. I assumed he was condemning those paramilitaries for attacks on Catholics.

Mr Conor Murphy: I give the Member’s assumption the benefit of the doubt.
Referring to his constituency, Mr Beggs appeared to grasp one incident, which he imagined had some relevance to Republicanism, and completely ignore the huge issue that has been keeping Larne to the forefront of the media in the last months — attacks on Catholics. Nevertheless, I am sure Mr Beggs can answer for himself at some stage.
I am disappointed. The opposition, particularly from the DUP, masks their declared opposition to the fact that the motion was proposed by me. Some of their contributions mask the fact that they are actually opposed to the Law Centre report and its recommendations. Some of the racist and xenophobic stuff that came from them was an embarrassment to the Chamber, but probably not to themselves — but again, they are quite hard to embarrass.
Some Unionist Members may unite to vote against the motion. If they do, they may feel they have scored another success over Sinn Féin and the Republican movement. However, the Assembly needs to send a clear message to the British and Irish Governments that asylum seekers here and in Great Britain are being handled very badly. It is a disgrace, given the fact that we are a nation that has sought asylum in so many other countries. It should be changed.

Mr Roy Beggs: Will the Member give way?

Mr Conor Murphy: I was trying to conclude, but I will give way.

Sir John Gorman: You can give way if you want.

Mr Conor Murphy: If the Member had not left the Chamber when I started to speak and only returned when his name was mentioned, he might have had an opportunity earlier.
If the motion is not adopted, the real losers will not be Sinn Féin or anyone who supported the motion. The real losers will be the asylum seekers themselves.
Question put and agreed.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes with concern the report by the Law Centre, ‘Sanctuary in a Cell’, on the detention of asylum seekers and calls upon the Government to develop an alternative to detaining asylum seekers and to devise methods of expediting the application process.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Jane Morrice] in the Chair)
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Madam Deputy Speaker]

Acute Hospital Services (Strabane and Omagh)

Mr Joe Byrne: Of all the devolved Administration’s Departments, it is arguable that decisions taken by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety have the most important effect upon the daily lives of people in Northern Ireland. Among other factors, the quality of health care provision has a direct impact on life expectancy.
According to the draft Programme for Government, our life expectancy is lower than in other developed countries. We have higher numbers of patients on waiting lists for 12 months or longer. In the North, ill health is closely linked to social disadvantage, and long-term sickness rates are three times greater in some areas than in others. Therefore decisions taken by the Executive Committee in relation to health care will have far reaching implications for everyone in this region.
The recommendations of the independent review group, which is chaired by DrMauriceHayes, on the provision of acute hospital services is keenly awaited by everyone in the North. In particular, the publication of the review group’s report is awaited with much anticipation in my constituency of West Tyrone due to the gradual but consistent reduction in the level of acute services over a number of years. This has heightened the real sense of social exclusion and marginalisation felt by the population in this region.
The region is served by the Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Services Trust which encompasses three district council areas — Omagh, Fermanagh and approximately one third of Strabane. Overall, the trust delivers health and social care to around 115,000 people spread across 1,000sqmiles of some of the most remote and marginal areas of Northern Ireland.
As I am a Member for West Tyrone, I will concentrate primarily on the West Tyrone area of the trust’s responsibilities. That includes all of Omagh District Council and the Plumbridge, Newtownstewart and Castlederg areas of Strabane District Council. Of course, it is impossible to discuss this part of the region in isolation because the outcome of the acute services review will have consequences for the entire south-west.
Over the past 20 years, the people of West Tyrone have witnessed a gradual deterioration in the provision of acute services. This can be traced back to 1979 when the Department of Health and Social Services and the Western Health and Social Services Board recommended that acute services should be concentrated in Altnagelvin Hospital and Enniskillen. However, Omagh District Council successfully made a case which justified a need for three acute hospitals in the area, including the Tyrone County Hospital.
Since 1979, there has been some modest investment in the Tyrone County Hospital — for example, in 1987 a satellite renal dialysis unit was located in Omagh because of its central location. However, the maternity unit at the Tyrone County Hospital was closed down in 1994, and that was followed by the centralisation of neo-natal and paediatric services in the Erne Hospital.
Since then, there has been an ongoing leakage of services from the south-west, and from Tyrone County Hospital in particular. Overall, if one examines both inpatient and outpatient data between 1995 and 2000, there has been a continuous decline in the level of acute services’ provision. In 1995-96, Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Services Trust had an average of 257acute beds, yet the number of beds had decreased by 24 to 233 from 1999 to 2000. It is worth noting that in the same period, the number of acute inpatient day cases increased from almost 3,500 to almost 5,000 —a rise of over 500.
Statistics also show a similar decline in outpatient services. The number of clinic sessions held in Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Services Trust hospitals has decreased from around 4,000 in 1995-96, to under 2,500 in 1999-2000. There has also been a noticeable decline in GP written referrals to Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Services Trust hospitals from 18,445 in 1995/96, to 14,057.
If one examines similar statistics in relation to Altnagelvin Hospitals, Health and Social Services Trust, there is a significant rise in outpatient activity.
This debate is not a case of the Tyrone County Hospital verses the Erne Hospital, or Sperrin Lakeland Trust verses Altnagelvin. The people I represent do not want to see one hospital close down or one trust receive preferential treatment to the detriment of patients in another trust or constituency. Rather, this is an issue that goes to the core of the Health Minister’s commitment to social inclusion in the provision of acute services in the entire south-west region on a fair and equitable basis that matches the needs of patients, as opposed to discriminating against patients because of where they live.
Several models of acute service delivery for the region have been put forward in recent years. A report funded by Sperrin Lakeland Trust and Omagh, Fermanagh and Strabane District Councils, and published in 1997, proposed that the Tyrone County Hospital and the Erne Hospital could be developed as one hospital on two sites. However, that scenario received little support and the rapid deterioration of acute services in the west generally, and in the Tyrone County Hospital specifically, have made that option unworkable. A new area category hospital to serve the entire south-west region is now the best possible option.
The Government’s 1997 report ‘Putting it Right’ identified the need for patients to receive hospital treatment from a local hospital and recommended that hospital services be organised so as to ensure that all patients, no matter where they live, receive an equally high quality of health care. The report identified the need for a number of local hospitals that would provide general acute services to the local population. These hospitals would be located in Coleraine, the Daisy Hill Hospital in Newry and in the southern part of the Western Health and Social Services Board area.
Twoyears ago the Western Health and Social Services Board brought the new hospital scenario one stage further and conducted a review of acute services that examined six models of delivery. The aim of the review was to find, through extensive public consultation, the model that would best meet the public’s aspiration for accessibility to services, including an emergency hospital in the south-west of Northern Ireland. The Western Health and Social Services Board concluded in the subsequent report, ‘The Way Forward’, that acute services in the western area should be provided through a pattern of services based at Altnagelvin Hospital and a new hospital located in the south-west. Omagh District Council’s response to the review also endorsed the need for a new area hospital, but in the meantime there should be strong interim arrangements to maintain the existing level of services.
Since the publication of the Western Health and Social Services Board’s report, there has been a crisis of confidence among the population in the south-west because the Minister of Health and her Department appear to be avoiding the need to make a decision. The Minister and her Department have increased the level of anxiety and uncertainty around this issue. Many people in west Tyrone believe that the Department was dithering and delaying taking any decisions by commissioning, in July last year, a further review of acute services.
However, now that the independent review group will soon be publishing its report, it is important that we do our utmost to ensure that the people of the south-west receive the best possible standard of acute services provision. It is imperative that the review group should endorse the Western Health and Social Services Board’s proposal for a new hospital in the south-west and that the Minister support its recommendations.
The people of West Tyrone must have access to the key acute services and rapid access to high-level specialist care. Any proposal for a new hospital must make the best available use of clinical practice and resources and should be located in an area that has the necessary infrastructure and public services.
As regards the need for joined-up Government, the Minister’s decision must also be made with reference to other Government policies and the requirements of the equality legislation, which states that the Department must ensure that effective health and social care services are available to everyone in Northern Ireland. The Minister must also refer to the requirements laid down by New TSN, which requires that resources be targeted to the areas most in need.
The Omagh and Strabane district council areas have been designated as suffering from high levels of social deprivation and long-term unemployment. The Robson index highlights Strabane as the most deprived district in Northern Ireland.
When making her decisions on other Government policies, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety must address the issues of spatial equity and sustainable development. The Regional Development Department’s strategic framework document, ‘Shaping our Future’, designates Omagh as a major service centre. It identifies Omagh as a town with strong potential for growth, and well equipped to develop as the major service centre for the west of the region.
Omagh has a population of 25,000, and outside of Derry it is the largest urban centre in the north-west of Ireland. The population of the entire district, which is now almost 48,000, has grown by 20% in the last 30 years and the population in the rural hinterland is approaching 150,000. Therefore any recommendation made by the review and any decision taken by the Minister should capitalise on the existing infrastructure, must be accessible and should make best use of the existing logistical, administrative and business support services in the region.
The people of the south-west need certainty on this crucial issue from the Health Minister and her Department. They want the Minister to have the courage to make a speedy decision and end the endless series of reviews. She should pay a visit to the Tyrone County Hospital and the Erne Hospital and show her solidarity and commitment to patients and medical staff in the south- west region.
The Minister, with the rest of the Executive Committee, signed up to the draft Programme for Government. It included a commitment to make a difference for the better to the lives of the people of Northern Ireland. When the independent review group publishes its report at the end of the month, the Minister’s final decision will be a key test of her own and her Department’s resolve to fulfil the terms of her pledge of office, the requirements of the equality legislation and the commitments given in the draft Programme for Government to reduce health inequalities in the marginal and rural parts of Northern Ireland.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I support the motion. Mr Byrne dealt historically with the majority of the background relating to the local hospitals. He rightly said that Tyrone County Hospital lost its maternity services in 1994. Unfortunately for Erne Hospital, the predictions that were made on the numbers that would use its maternity services did not develop as anticipated. As a result, Erne Hospital is limping along — and I used that expression yesterday when asking a question of the Minister.
Tyrone County Hospital is limping along. Services are leaking away on a casual ad hoc basis. That is despite the Minister’s assurances yesterday — which I was delighted to hear — that she wanted to ensure that services were maintained in the interim. However, that has not been the case.
On the last occasion that I visited my GP, he was in a temper because he had referred one of his patients to a medical facility without knowing that it had been taken from the hospital. The patient had arrived at the Tyrone County Hospital only to discover that a decision had been made to take the facility from it. Nobody knew whether the facility would be available at Erne Hospital, Altnagelvin Hospital or Craigavon Area Hospital. The patient was left in limbo until, after a series of telephone calls, somebody discovered where the service was available.
In the east of the county, South Tyrone Hospital has been virtually closed down.
At present Counties Tyrone and Fermanagh have a population of 200,000, who are more or less dependent upon the Tyrone County Hospital and the Erne Hospital. However, the vast majority of the services are dripping away from those hospitals. The staff feel demoralised, people have held street rallies, but they feel as though no one is listening. We made a presentation to DrHayes and his review group, and we were not just talking locally or parochially. We were making a point about good, genuine acute services for the whole south-west of the Province. It would take that amount of people to make one sustainable and viable unit. We are quite reasonable about that because we had a similar arrangement whereby the psychiatric facilities for both counties were based in one hospital. Therefore there is a historical precedent for the two counties to join and operate in unison.
Representatives from both counties made a presentation to the Department of the Environment for the ‘Shaping Our Future’ document. It is not new for co-operation and determination to come from both counties.
People made their case to GeorgeHowarth just before the Assembly recommenced last May. We thought then that he was ready to issue a determination, and we were rather surprised when the new Minister announced another review. However, we are quite content to wait because we hope that it will only be another year. We also hope that there will be a favourable consideration at last that will give encouragement and heart to the 200,000 people who now expect, in the age of equality, not only transparency and justice but also equality of opportunity and availability of a good Health Service.
People are prepared to make the 140-mile return journey from Omagh to Belfast to receive very specialist care. However, we do not see why a new provision in the south-west of the Province should not equally have a number of specialities. Not only do we have the facilities for a good acute service, but we also have the location and the population to support it.
This is an opportunity to make a hospital available in the south-west of the Province, which is attractive because it can provide quality and attract consultants of calibre. Tyrone County Hospital has a number of specialities. Its ENT section is known nationally and internationally. Specialities in kidney dialysis — chosen because of the need to centralise that service in the west of the Province — are reckoned to be equal to anything in the rest of the world.
Therefore we are talking about people who have already acquired a high level of expertise. We can bring those people together with other experts in the various fields of medicine. The south-west has every good reason to expect a favourable outcome. After Easter I hope that the Minister will be able to encourage us with a favourable announcement.

Mr Pat Doherty: A LeasCheann Comhairle, there should be a co-ordinated strategic approach to the planning and delivery of acute services in West Tyrone. That would allow for the development of structural health care plans, accessible services and centres of excellence. Greater co-operation would also make better use of resources, build clinical expertise and deliver accessible services for patients and families.
Another issue is that many of the inequalities in the provision of acute care are a direct result of the fragmentation of planning and the parochial nature of boards. With the four area boards limited to overseeing the planning and delivery of acute services for their respective areas, there can be no overall strategic approach. Responsibility for planning and funding must be removed from the present board structures and given to a regional acute planning service established within the Department. The service would then have the widest possible remit to develop, in co-operation with other bodies, centres of excellence and co-ordinated regional services.
The Department must also develop regional patterns in the siting of acute care. Such an approach could be expected to provide major benefits that would obviate duplication of services and produce savings through the sharing of resources. That would also enable cross-border co-operation on high technology, leading to the distribution of complex and expensive procedures to designated centres of excellence throughout the island, as well as a greater responsiveness to the more isolated communities, such as West Tyrone.
Levels of planning should be clear, transparent and inclusive, and must uphold both the letter and ethos of equality legislation. I believe that in the planning, funding and siting of acute care in West Tyrone, the Department should establish a body comprising service users or their representatives, trade unions and the full range of health care professionals. The cross-border approach could be developed under the aegis of North/South co-operation, reporting to and accountable to the North/South Ministerial Council. Alternatively, the body could report to the respective Ministers.
The concept of accountability should not be solely applied to the central planning, funding and siting of acute care facilities. There should be greater accountability in the management of local hospitals and greater openness and transparency in hospital management. Trade unions and service users should be included in the management of hospital care. Unelected and unaccountable bodies are not the way forward. The Assembly and its associated Committees could provide oversight and help to assure the accountability of the Department. The structure of all aspects of acute care must be less bureaucratic and more cost-effective.
It must be accepted that an inaccessible service is not a quality service. Just as targets for waiting lists for in-patients and waiting times at accident and emergency units are used to evaluate the quality of service, it is incumbent to develop and implement such a target for accessibility. The Health Department must take account of the realities facing people in rural areas who need access to acute services. Their difficulties are of a cross-cutting nature, relating to time and distance — poor road infrastructure, lack of car ownership and, thus, dependency on public transport, which does not always exist or operate at the most appropriate time.
There are difficulties in achieving a balance between the accessibility of services and the provision of modern, high quality standards of care. However, the quality of care one receives cannot depend on where one lives, so Omagh must have acute hospital services.
The increase in waiting lists and the decrease in quality care stem from the reduction of the number of beds, the closure of hospitals and increased seasonal pressures. The current configuration of services within the hospital settings must be questioned. If care can be delivered locally, it should be. I accept the need to concentrate some services so that specialist teams have access to a wide range of clinical and technical backup. However, I see no reason for the majority of regional services being sited in Greater Belfast. Such a high concentration inside this limited area does not reflect an equitable and accessible hospital service.
In siting acute service care, one needs to take cognisance of the interface between the acute-care sector and community-based services. Some of the consequences of the proliferation of trusts and the preserved incentives of the internal market are particularly evident in this area.
The abolition of both the internal market and unaccountable, unrepresentative quangos is a prerequisite to the establishment of an accessible and equal health service. There should be an effective integration of service and a smooth transition between health sectors reflecting patients’ needs and the effective use of resources.
The review group must address the endemic underfunding of the Health Service and the piecemeal planning which wastes resources and duplicates management. A LeasCheann Chomhairle, recent cases have shown that quotas are not a true measure of quality. They promote the attitude that the attainment of specific targets is more important than the treatment of patients. They have been the driving factors behind acute-service reviews and the withdrawal of acute services from some areas. Some services have been removed from hospitals, not because there is no need for them, but because there was not the requisite number of patients to meet arbitrary quotas set by the Royal Colleges.

Ms Jane Morrice: I have received no notice that any other Members wish to speak.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Caithfidh mé Joe Byrne a thréaslú as an tsaincheist thábhachtach seo a thógáil le díospóireacht inniu.
Is maith a thuigim tábhacht ospidéal áitiúil leis na comhphobail a bhfreastalaíonn siad orthu. Ar na mórdhúshláin a bhéas fúinn sna blianta seo chugainn beidh le tógáil ar a dtraidisiún de sheirbhís áitiúil le linn dúinn a chinntiú go dtig le hothair teacht a bheith acu ar thogha na míochaine nua-aimseartha.
Aithníonn an Teachta cé chomh tábhachtach agus atá mo shainchúram aireachta agus tábhacht obair na seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta. Aithníonn sé chomh maith go bhfuil tionchar an-tábhachtach ag cinntí de chuid an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin, agus fáiltím roimhe sin.
Tá eolas agam ar thíreolaíocht an cheantair agus tuigim an ról lárnach atá ag na hospidéil san Ómaigh agus in Inis Ceithleann i saol agus i leas a gcomhphobal féin. Ní sainiúil iad na deacrachtaí atá ag ospidéil bheaga atá ag iarraidh réimse leathan géarsheirbhísí a choinneáil. Leoga, tá deacrachtaí ag ár n-ospidéil bheaga foireann a earcú agus a choinneáil, agus ag an am chéanna riar ar éilimh a bheith ag síorfheabhsú chaighdeáin seirbhísí. Tá dúshlán fúinn teacht ar réiteach idir an feabhas a thóraíocht agus ionrochtaineacht ár seirbhísí a choinneáil, go háirithe dár ndaonraí tuaithe.
Caithfidh ár seirbhísí tógáil ar fhorbairtí sa mhíochaine, i dteicneolaíocht nua agus i ndrugaí nua má tá siad le riar ar riachtanais sláinte ár ndaonra sa todhchaí. Is minic a thig brú ar sheirbhísí a lárú in éineacht leis na forbairtí seo, mar shampla i gcóireáil ailse.
Mar sin féin, caithfimid na deiseanna a aithint atá ag teacht as na teicneolaíochtaí nua agus as an chleachtas chliniciúil nua-aimseartha le cúram agus le cóireáil a dhílárú agus a locáil trí úsáid teilemhíochaine agus tríd an líonrú chliniciúil nua-aimseartha. Féadann siad seo brí úr a chur faoi sheirbhísí sna hospidéil bheaga a bheadh scoite ina n-easpa. Tuigim a láidreacht atá an tacaíocht do na hospidéil áitiúla seo agus d’ospidéil eile; tacaíocht a chuir Teachtaí i bhfriotal go solabhartha le linn na díospóireachta. Is cúram domh bhur gcúraim faoi bhrúnna ar ospidéil áitiúla agus tuigim bhur n-eagla go bhfuil siad faoi chrann smola ag easpa treorach soiléire faoi sholáthar seirbhísí sa todhchaí.
Ba é seo an fáth ar chuir mé an t-aithbhreithniú ar sheirbhísí géarospidéal ar bun faoi chathaoirleacht an Dr Maurice Hayes. Tá a fhios agam gur thionóil sé agus a fhoireann cruinnithe sna comhphobail a dtacaíonn ár n-ospidéil bheaga leo.
I congratulate Mr Byrne on raising this important issue. I appreciate the importance of local hospitals to the communities that they serve. One of the real challenges facing us in the coming years is to build on the tradition of local service, while ensuring that patients have access to the best that modern medicine has to offer. I welcome the Member’s acknowledgement of the vital importance of my portfolio and of health and social services. As he acknowledged, it is not merely a question for myself, but of the importance that the Executive places on the Health Service in its decisions. I know the local geography and appreciate the central roles that the hospitals in Omagh and Enniskillen play in the life and well-being of their respective communities. I share many of the concerns that have been expressed and agree that local communities must play a part in the development of services in their area.
The difficulties that small hospitals face in seeking to maintain a broad band of acute services are not unique to these hospitals, and Members have recognised that. All our smaller hospitals are confronted by the dilemma of how to recruit and retain staff and how to meet the demand for continuous improvement of standards. The challenge is to balance the necessary pursuit of excellence with accessibility, especially for rural communities. Our services must build on developments in medicine, technology and drugs if they are to meet the needs of our population. Such developments frequently exert pressure for the centralisation of services, as in the case of cancer treatment. However, we must also be conscious of the opportunities to decentralise and localise care offered by new technologies, such as tele-medicine, and modern clinical networking. Such developments breathe fresh vigour into otherwise isolated services at smaller hospitals.
I appreciate the strength of support for these and other local hospitals; it has been eloquently expressed by Members today. I share the concerns about pressures on local hospitals and the fears that they have been blighted by a lack of clear direction in respect of future service provision. That is why I set up the review of acute hospital services under the chairmanship of Dr Maurice Hayes. Dr Hayes and his team have held meetings in the communities served by our smaller hospitals and have had fruitful discussions with many community groups and individuals about the future of acute services and how they might develop.
I await the report with great anticipation. Its publication will furnish us with an opportunity to debate afresh how our services must develop, but, while the review is ongoing, it would be inappropriate for me to make advance comment on the way forward. I expect to receive the report in the spring and intend to consult fully on it, before coming to any conclusions. In the meantime, I expect trusts to maintain their current acute services in our smaller hospitals, unless that would seriously compromise patient care and treatment.
At any point where services are not to be maintained, any transfer of services must be temporary. I am not clear about the reference made by Oliver Gibson to a specific case, but if he wishes to write to me I will be very happy to take the matter up with him.
On the other points raised by Members, I share their desire to ensure the availability of a good acute Health Service. That is what I expect to come out of the acute hospital review. I believe that it is important to build on the strengths of our current services and staff. I am absolutely committed to developing open and transparent Health Service arrangements that actively involve, and listen to, local communities.
Mr Byrne in his opening comments referred to ‘Putting it Right’. That paper reflected the views of Ministers at that time in relation to the pattern of services. It does not necessarily reflect my views, and I have said before that I want to take a completely fresh look at these issues. Had it not been for the four-month suspension, I would now have been in post for a year. In that period I have taken on board the questions that need to be tackled. I have very proactively taken forward some of the concerns mentioned by Mr Byrne in his opening speech. These include the question of the health of our population and the need for a public health strategy that goes wider than the Health Service, the question of the future pattern and development of primary care services, and the very critical question of acute hospital services.
Reference was made to North/South linkages, and Pat Doherty referred to the need for an overall strategic approach. I agree totally that we need to develop a regional view of acute services. There are no boundaries in my thinking, and no boundaries have been set in the terms of reference of the acute hospitals review. We need to look at ourselves in this broader context and to build arrangements in the interest of all our people.
On North/South development, I am committed to building up effective linkages, and that is included in the terms of reference of the acute hospitals review. I am consequently open to any suggestions that Members may wish to put to me regarding the construction of cross-border partnerships that can work in the interests of patients.
With regard to the review of administration that is being taken forward, and any consequent changes and structures, my first priority, after the years of uncertainty, must be to set an appropriate direction for our hospital service. The form of administration required to operate such a service should be influenced by its functions, as determined in the light of the acute hospitals review. I would stress again that there is no question of my avoiding a decision. I have acted decisively to address this and other issues in the short — and somewhat difficult — period of suspension.
The points raised by the Member regarding waiting lists and winter pressures are matters that I have vigorously tackled. I can confirm to Joe Byrne that any decisions taken as a result of the independent review will be in line with the principles of TSN, and they must be assessed and equality proofed in line with section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
On the question of rurality, I absolutely recognise the specific problems facing rural communities. I am prepared to take those into account in developing the required acute hospital strategy for the future, and, therefore, the issue is referred to in the remit of the acute hospitals review group. Reference was made to other Departments, and I trust that my Colleagues in the Executive are taking similar steps to ensure that their strategic planning takes account of the interests of rural communities. That point was certainly taken forward in our discussions on the Programme for Government.
Looking to the future, I am committed to creating a new and better hospital service. I will build on the report of the acute hospitals review group to stimulate an open and informed debate on the way forward.
At this stage I cannot say any more about the outcome of this process. I can say that I am committed to creating a modern and effective hospital service which will meet the needs of our population in this new century; a service which will provide a standard and quality of care comparable with the best in Europe; a service that will use technology in the interest of its users. We need a service that takes account of the overall needs of our population, which must, and will, include those people who live in rural areas.
Adjourned at 7.05 pm.